AB HAQ Vs. SANT RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application for re -hearing of a revision petition, which was decided exparte on 20 -5 -1970. The ground taken in the application is that this case was fixed on 19th May 1970 which was declared a holiday. The petitioners learned counsel approached the Deputy Registrar of this court who told him that the case would not be taken up on the 20th of May 1970 but some other date would be fixed. Acting on this assurance, the learned counsel did not appear in the court on 20th May 1970. But the case was actually taken up on that date and decided exparte.

(2.) AN objection has been taken on behalf of the respondent, that this application does not lie. The revision petition has been heard and decided after hearing the counsel for the respondent. There is no provision in the Code of Civil Procedure under which an order passed by this court on 20th May 1970 in this case can be set aside and the petitioner heard in the revision petition. The learned counsel for the respondent relied on 1901 Punjab Record page 172 (case No. 54) a Full Bench Judgment and on other judgments reported as AIR 1945 Mad. 103 and AIR 1944 Mad. 293. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that as the revision petition was heard exparte, in law if he can satisfy the court for the non -appearance of the petitioner on that, date, the exparte order shall be set aside and the petition heard on merits. He referred me to AIR 1953 Madh. Bharat 272; AIR 1965 All. 446 and AIR 1967 J&K 93.

(3.) IN 1901 Punjab Record page 172, learned Judges were considering whether second application for revision after the decision of the first does or does not lie. They held that though another application for revision would lie when the original application was dismissed for default but no second application would lie if the first revision application has been decided even exparte. Their Lordships further laid down that in such cases a review petition should be presented. In the first place the point that arises in this case was not strictly before their Lordships for their consideration in that case. There they were considering whether a second application for revision would lie or not. Here the case is not of a second revision application but of cancelling an exparte order passed in a revision petition. Therefore the observations in that case have no relevance to the facts of this case. Further I am not inclined to agree with their Lordships that a review is the proper remedy in such cases because to put it briefly, the conditions on which a review petition lies are entirely different from those considerations which cover the restoration of a revision petition or presenting a second application for revision. I cut this matter short here because any comments on this point would be off the point, and uncalled for.