High Court Of Delhi
GURU DUTT GUPTA - Appellant
Versus
GAURI SHANKER AND COMPANY - Respondent
Civil 52-D of 1960
Decided On : 04/06/1967
PROVINCIAL SMALL CAUSE COURTS ACT, 1887 - SECTION 25 - ORDER 9 RULE 13, CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE - EX-PARTE DECREE - SETTING ASIDE - SUFFICIENT CAUSE - MEDICAL CERTIFICATE - PROOF - INDEPENDENT WITNESS - TECHNICALITY.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner challenged the order of the Additional Judge, Small Cause Court, Delhi, dismissing his application to set aside an ex-parte decree passed against him. The petitioner was unable to attend the court due to illness and sent a medical certificate by post to his counsel, which reached late. The counsel filed an application to set aside the ex-parte decree, but it was dismissed by the Additional Judge.
Finding of the Court:
The court allowed the revision petition, set aside the order of the Additional Judge, and also set aside the ex-parte decree. The court held that the petitioner had sufficient cause for not attending the court and that the technicalities insisted upon by the Additional Judge were unwarranted.
Issues: Whether the petitioner had sufficient cause for not attending the court.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner had sufficient cause for not attending the court as he was suffering from high blood pressure and the medical officer had advised him two weeks of rest and treatment. The court also held that the technicalities insisted upon by the Additional Judge, such as the absence of an affidavit and the failure to produce an independent witness to corroborate the petitioner's statement, were unwarranted.
Final Decision: The court allowed the revision petition, set aside the order of the Additional Judge, and also set aside the ex-parte decree.
( 1 ) THIS petition under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, is filed against the order of the Additional Judge, Small Cause Court, Delhi, dated 13-ll-?9, dismissing the application of the petitioner under Order Rule 13, Civil Procedure Code. for setting aside an ex-parte decree passed against him. The respondent herein, filed suit No. 2687 of 1957 for recovery of Rs. 600. 00 from the petitioner herein. The petitioner contested the suit. The evidence was recorded and on 29-5-59, the case was adjourned to 11-6-59 for the remainining evidence. On 11-6-59, the petitioner herein did not appear and the Court passed an ex-parte decree.
( 2 ) FROM the records what transpires is that after the case was adjourned on 29-5-59, the petitioner herein, went to Kota to attend to his business and there he fell ill, with the result, he was not able to return lo Delhi to attend to his case on 11-6-59. He obtained a medical certificate from the Medical Officer, Suraj Pur Dispensary, Kota, of the Rajasthan Medical Dtpartment, on 8-6-59 and sent the same by post to his council at Delhi on 9-6-59. However, it reached the counsel on 12-6-59. There after, on 13-6-59, the counsel for the petitioner herein filed the application underolder 6 Rule 13, or setting aside the ex-parte decree; stating the circumstances referred to above. The learned Additional Judge, Small Causes Court, Delhi, by a procees of curious reasoning by his order dated 13-11-59, dismissed, the petitioner has came up to this Court. It is better to extract the order of the learned Additional Judge in full. He held;-
GURU Datt has been examinad as DW1. He has stated that he had gone to Kota where he fell ill, and therefore, could not attend the court. No other independent witness has been produced to corroborate his statement. A medical certificate was received by post from Kota. It is market Exhibit A. 1. This certificate has not been proved by the Medical Officer who gave it. Moreover, even the certificate shows that Guru Datt was not seriously ill. He was only an cut patient at the Hospital. In my opinion, there is no sufficient cause for setting aside the ex-parte decree. The significant thing that has to be noticed in this case is that the plaintiff who obtained the ex-parte decree, did not come to the Court to oppose this application for setting aside the ex-parte decree and it is also represented to me that the entire decretal amount was deposited by the petitioner herein into the Court. Notwithstanding these features, the learned Additional Judge proceeded to dismiss the application for the reasons recorded by him. This approach of the learned Additional Judge to the question is totally unwarranted and betrays a lack of appreciation of the proper judicial approach expected of him in such matters. I have seen the medical certificate itself. That certificate is dated 8. 6, 59 and stales that the petitioner herein was suffering from high blood-pressure and the medical officer was of opinion that he required two weeks rest and treatment. In the light of this, to say that the medical certificate showed that the petitioner herein was only an out-patient and was not seriously ill betrays a total ignorance and want of proper understanding of the contents of the medical certificate itself. A person suffering from High Blood Pressure on 8. 6. 59. , whether he was treated as an Out Patient or inatient could not be expected to travel from Kota to Delhi and be present at Delhi on 1 1. 6. 59. when the Medical Officer was of the opinion that he required two weeks rest and treatment.
( 3 ) THE other ground given by the Learned Addition Judge is that no affidavit was filed by the petitioner, I have already indicated that the petition was filed by the counsel for the petitioner on 13. 6. 59 when the petitioner himself was not in Delhi. Hov could the learned Additional Judge expect the petitioner to file the affidavit on that day, passes one s comprehension. As a
AI
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.