HIRALAL Vs. PARMANAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is preferred against the judgement of Additional District Judge No. 2, Bharatpur, by which, he accepted the appeal of the non-petitioner and set aside the order of the Munsif, Bharatpur dated 29th Nov. '82,.

(2.) HIRALAL filed a suit for rent and eviction, in the court of Munsif, Bharatpur. The learned Munsif, on 2nd July, 1980, determined the rent to be paid by the defendant, and directed the defendant to deposit the amount within 15 days. On 16th July,'80, the defendant requested the court to extend the time for depositing the amount, and further time of 15 days was granted to him. Thereafter, on 17th July, '80, the defendant preferred an appeal against the order of the learned Munsif dated 2nd July, '80 and obtained a stay order from the appellate court. That appeal was dismissed on 7th Nov. '81. The defendant deposited the amount determined by the court as well as the arrears of monthly rent for the months November & December, 1981. He also submitted an application before the court to the effect that he came to know about the judgment of the appellate court on the 20th Jan. '82, and hence, the delay from 7th Nov. '81 to 21st Jan. '82, be condoned, for depositing the determined rent.

(3.) I agree with the argument of Mr. Khejriwal, the learned counsel for the petitioner. The appellant, while filing the appeal before the court of ADJ, was not unrepresented, but, he was represented by a counsel. His counsel argued the appeal and he was present when the appeal was disposed of. It was the duty of the defendant either to have been present on every date before the appellate court, or if he thought not to be present and relied on his counsel, then, it was his duty to have found out from his counsel about the fate of the appeal. This is no ground that after engaging a counsel, the defendant could be silent and would sleep at his house and his counsel would come to his house and inform him what had happened to his appeal. The fact of engaging a counsel, does not relieve a party of his duty of knowing as to the happenings to his case. Therefore, the ground that the defendant did not know about the judgment of the appellate court on 7th Nov. , '81, but he came to know about it only on 20th Jan. '81, is of no substance. In my opinion, this is no ground at all. Apart from this, it has not been shown as to how the defendant - non - petitioner came to know about the judgment of the appellate court on 20th Jan. '82. After 7th Nov. '81, till 20th Jan. , where the defendant - non - petitioner, Parmanand was? It is very easy to say that he did not come to know about the judgment of the appellate court earlier, but he came to know about it only on 20th Jan. , '82. Hence, I do not feel that defendant - non-petitioner Parmanand was not in the knowledge of the judgment of the appellate court on 7th Nov. , '81.