VASDEV Vs. OM PARKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a civil revision against the order of the District Judge, Kathua, dated 6 -4 -1970 wherby he reversed the order of the Sub Judge kathua dated 30 -6 -1969. The facts relevant to this controversy are that the petitioner brought a suit for Rs. 3,990 against the respondent in the court of Sub Judge Kathua on 2 -5 -1967. After the defendant was summoned on 29 -7 -1967 one Mr. Jawala Prakash Gupta, a counsel practicing at Kathua appeared for the defendant. Time was granted to the defendant to file his written statement by 21 -8 -1967. On that date the same learned counsel sought an adjournment to present the written statement which was granted to him subject to his paying Rs, 10/ - as costs The next date fixed in the case was 5 -10 -1957. On that date the written statement was presented but costs were not paid. The case went on till 21 -12 -1967. On that date nobody appeared for the defendant. Ex -parte proceedings were taken against him and the case was fixed for 23 -12 -1967 on which date after recording some evidence, the suit of the plaintiff was decreed exparte for Rs. 3,990/ - and costs -

(2.) LATER on execution was taken out by the petitioner against the respondent on 17 -4 -1968, notice thereof was sought to be served on the defendant judgment -debtor on 2 -5 -68. The respondent was not at his place. The respondentâ„¢s wife assured the process server that the respondent would be present in court on 8 -5 -1968, the date fixed in the execution petition On 8 -5 -1968. The respondent did not appear and the plaintiff requested the court to imprison the respondent for non -payment of the decretal amount. Later, on 21 -5 -1968 the defendant put in an application for setting aside the exparte decree passed against him on 23 -12 -1967 The application was accompanied by an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act for extention of time. The contents of both the applications are that the case was being followed by the defendants counsel Mr. Jawala Prakash and from 23 -12 -1967 upto the date of the application he met his counsel a number of times but his counsel never informed the respondent about the exparte decree. He had come to know about the exparte decree only a week back. This application was resisted by the petitioner plaintiff and parties led some evidence in the Sub Judges court. The respondent -defendant among other witnesses produced his counsel Mr. Jawala Prakash The Learned Sub Judge came to the conclusion that no sufficient cause had been made out to set aside the exparte decree, therefore he dismissed the application of the respondent. An appeal was preferred before the learned District Judge Kathua, who accepted the appeal by means of his order under revision dated 6 -4 -1970. Against this order of the District Judge, the present revision has been filed by the plaintiff -petitioner.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the order of the District Judge.