TIMBER PVT LTD Vs. WAZIR PRABHAT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are two applications seeking revision of the orders dated May

(2.) ND , 1970, passed by the Sub Registrar, Munsiff Jammu, in a suit for possession of land measuring 22 kanals and 3 MarFas situate in Nowabad, Jammu. 2 It appears that after the written statement of the defendants the trial court settled the issues on February 26th 1970 and called upon the plaintiffs to adduce their evidence on March 24th 1970. No witness of the plaintiffs having been served for March 24th, 1970 the case was adjourned to April 3rd, 1970. On this date the court began recording the statement of Ram Narain Patwari PW but could not conclude the same as the defendants wanted the witness to file copies of some revenue record. The case was accordingly adjourned to April 22nd 1970, on which date the patwari not being present the court ordered that both he and another witness of the plaintiffs viz Ram Saran. petition writer, be summoned for April 28th 1970. The case did not, however register any progress on April 28th, 1970 and the date following i. e. April 30th 1970 on account of the absence of the witness. On the case coming up on May, 2nd 1970 the court declared it ex -parte against the defendants because of their default in appearance, recorded the statement of Ram Saran and ordered the Patwari who was again absent to be summoned for May 13 1970. On the next date i. e. May 13 1970, the counsel for the plaintiffs and the defendants were present but the court refused to record the presence of the defendants* counsel on the ground that it had already placed his clients ex -parte. The case had however to be adjourned to May 20th, 1970. as the Patwari was again absent. On May 20th, 1970, the counsel for the defendents filed an application dated May 13, 1970 for setting aside the ex -parte proceedings and recalling Ram Saran petition writer stating interalia that, his client had attended the court several times on May 2nd, 1970. but the Presiding Officer was busy registering documents as Sub Registrar. The court therefrom adopted as somewhat queer procedure. Instead of straightway granting time to the plaintiffs to file their objections to the application and adjourning the case, it recorded the statement of Ram Narain Patwari without giving the defendants an opportunity of cross -examining the witness and then adjourned the case to May 26th, 1970 for objections of the plaintiffs to the aforesaid application and for further proceedings. On the next date i. e. May 26th 1970, the court while dismissing the defendants application for setting aside the ex -parte order made on May 2nd 1970, on the ground that no sufficient cause for their absence On May 2nd, 1970, had been made out adopted a suffer attitude against the defendants, recorded the statement of one of the plaintiffs, closed their evidence & directed the case to be posted for ex -parte judgment on May 30th 1970.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the relevant law.