GH MALIK Vs. JABAR MANDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision against an order passed by the Second Additional Munsiff at Srinagar in an application preferred by the respondent under O. 9, R. 13, Civil P. C. for setting aside an ex parte decree passed against him. As the order passed by the Second Additional Munsiff is rather interesting, I would like to extract it in full: (Original in Urdu - Ed.)

(2.) THE order quoted above does not suggest the disposal of an application under O. 9, R. 13. In other words, the order passed is so inappropriate to the proceedings in which it was purported to be passed. One can legitimately doubt whether the learned Munsiff was at all aware of the nature and scope of the proceedings in which he was passing the above cited order. This result came to pass because the Munsiff appears to have totally acted in a routine, mechanical manner without caring to exercise his mind judicially. If he had given judicial consideration to the matter pending before him, he would have at least said that the ex parte decree against the applicant was set aside; and a proper judicial consideration of the matter would also have led him to say whether or not the applicant under O. 9, R. 13 had satisfied him that the summons was not duly served or that he was prevented by sufficient cause from appearing when the suit was called on for hearing. Mr. Chowdhury for the respondent -judgment -debtor says that there is nothing in O. 9, R. 13 which enjoins on a court to record in so many words that it was satisfied about the sufficient cause, etc. as a condition precedent to granting relief under O. 9, R. 13.

(3.) IN the instant case there is hardly anything either in the order or in the proceedings to show that the petitioner satisfied the court about the non -service of summons or the existence of sufficient cause for non -appearance. This alone is, therefore, sufficient for setting aside the order passed by the trial court. Added to this is indeed the strange circumstance that a very inappropriate order was passed which indicates an utter forgetfulness on the part of the court as to what was the proceeding before it.