SHRIBALABH BRAHMAN Vs. GULAB MALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) GULAB Mali, the opponent of this and the two connected applications for revision, is an occupancy tenant of: land belonging to the. applicant Shribalabh Brahman. He attained majority on 29th May 1924. On 15th April 1920,, Shribalabh filed a suit against him (C.S. No. 57 of 1920) claiming the amount of the second kist of rent for 1916-17 and1, the full rent of the two following years. The plaint described Gulab as 15 years of age, which was very nearly correct, and asked for the appointment of his grandmother as his guardian, for the suit. Notices were duly served, but there was no appearance for the defendant and the Court passed an ex parte decree on 15th April 1920, without having appointed any guardian for the defendant.

(2.) IN 1922 Gulab filed Civil Suit No. 85 of 1922, claiming a declaration that the rent decree passed against him was void because he was still a minor and had not been represented in the suit at all. A decree to that effect was passed, on the 6th November 1922, and an appeal against it naturally failed.

(3.) AFTER wasting some months in appealing against this declaratory decree, in addition to the two years wasted in contesting the suit in which it was passed, Shribalabh applied, on 5th October 1925, to have his three rent suits restored to the file and treated as still pending, under Section 151, Civil P.C. That is an admission that this could not be done under the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code, and a prayer that those provisions should be contravened, on the ground that that is the only way in which injustice can be prevented. The judgment of the lower Court is hard to follow, but at least it shows a complete failure to understand the position. Four arguments are set out as advanced against the granting of the application, and in the view that these seem plausible enough the application is rejected.