BAIJNATH Vs. DHANI RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case the defendant is the applicant before us. A suit was instituted by the plaintiff-respondent in the Court of the Munsif of Agra with respect to a wall which divided the houses of the parties. The prayers were: (a) a declaration that the wall belonged to the plaintiff, (b) an order for removal of certain encroachments, (c) a perpetual injunction. After the case went to trial, the parties agreed that the Munsif should decide the case on an inspection of the documents filed by the parties and on an inspection of the locality and they further agreed to accept the decision of the learned Munsif. The result was that the Munsif was constituted, so to say, an arbitrator of the case. The learned Munsif wrote a judgment and decreed the suit in part. There was an appeal by the defendant which was dismissed by the learned District Judge and we have to-day dismissed the second appeal Baijnath V/s. Dhani Ram .

(2.) The defendant, although he filed an appeal, also filed an application for review of judgment, before the learned. Munsif. His grounds are stated at pp 5 and 6 of the paperbook prepared in this revision ease. The first point was that the decision of the suit was very vague and indefinite. The rights of the parties have not been made clear and even the dispute has not been decided. The second point was: The order is contrary to judgment and it does not decide the points which were to be decided. The third point was: The judgment shows that the wall at some places belongs to the defendant, but the order as contrary to that,

(3.) There were also other points taken. The learned Munsif fixed 26 March for hearing of the case. In the meantime, it was discovered, that there was a deficiency in the Court-fee and the defendant was asked to make good this deficiency. In the meanwhile, the record of the case went, before the District Judge before whom the appeal was and nothing further was done in the matter of the review. On 26 March 1927, the plaintiff appeared before the Munsif and filed his objection to the defendant's application for review of judgment. The record came back to the Munsif after the dismissal of appeal, but it is not clear on what date. The order that we find below the appellate order on the order sheet, is the order of 10 August 1927. which is complained of. It does not appear at all that the counsel for the parties were given notice of this date or were heard.