WAZIR JAGAT RAM Vs. SALAM JOO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision application directed against art order of the learned City Munsiff, Srinagar, dated 23rd Phagan, 2008, whereby an ex -parte decree passed against the defendant -applicant was set aside.

(2.) PANDIT Hirday Nath Dhar Advocate who argued this application with great ability and clarity made reference to a number of rulings in which it has been held that before an ex -parte decree is set aside the Court must come to a definite finding that there was sufficient cause for making such an order. With this principle of law to which the learned counsel has drawn my attention, one will have no quarrel. Rather I am in respectful agreement with this principle enunciated therein. But there is one feature of this case which distinguishes it from the facts of the cases relied upon by Mr. Hirday Nath. In this case the discretion primarily for setting aside of the decree vested in the Munsiff. He has exercised the discretion and unless and -until it is made to appear that the exercise of the discretion was arbitrary or unreasonable, I think this Court will not ordinarily interfere.

(3.) MR . Shyam Lal defendant non -applicantâ„¢s learned counsel has drawn my attention to A. I. R. 1944 Lahore 397 in which it has been held that: - The exercise of the powers in revision is discretionary and it has been a long established practice of the High Courts in India that where substantial justice has been done between the parties powers of revision should neither be invoked nor exercised. Where the order of the trial Court setting aside the ex -parte decree and permitting the parties to fight out the case on its merits on payment of costs was eminently a just order the power of revision cannot be exercised to reverse that order .