SHISHUPAL Vs. MANAK CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) he learned single Judge by his order dated 13-12-89 has referred the following two questions to be answered by a larger bench :- 1

(2.) Before considering the above referred questions, it would be appropriate to notice few relevant facts. The non-petitioner Manak Chand instituted a suit for arrears of rent and ejectment against the defendant petitioner Shishupal, On 9/05/1980 in the court of Munsif Beawar. The defendant appeared and filed his written statement on 15-12-80. Thereafter issues were framed. On 2/01/1985 the defendant and his counsel were not present so an ex parte order was passed. On 11-9-85, the plaintiff and his counsel were also not present and so the suit was dismissed in default. An application for restoration was filed by the plaintiff and the suit was restored to its original number on 11-10-85 without notice of the restoration application to the defendant. The suit was ultimately decreed on 17-2-86 and ex parte decree was passed. An application for setting aside the ex parte decree was presented by the defendant on 20/05/1986. That application was rejected on 29/07/1986 by the Munsif Beawar. The defendant preferred an appeal which was heard by the Additional District Judge Beawar. The appeal was also dismissed by the Additional District Judge on 1st Feb., 1989. Dissatisfied with the order of the learned Additional District Judge, the present revision was preferred by the defendant and during the course of arguments, the learned single Judge framed the aforesaid two questions and referred the questions to the larger bench.

(3.) We have heard Shri Kejriwal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri G.P. Kaushik, the learned counsel for the plaintiff-non-petitioner.