A. R. BAKSHI, P. N. BHAGWATI, J.

( 1 ) THE short question that arises in these Revision Appli- cations is as to what is the period of limitation for an application to set aside an ex parte award under sec. 36 of the Bombay Agricultural Debtors Relief Act 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). The petitioners in these Revision Applications filed a suit being Civil Suit No. 377 of 1946 in the Court of the Civil Judge Junior Division Ahmedabad for a declara- tion that a transaction relating to a field bearing Survey No. 121 situate in Vastrapur Village City Taluka Ahmedabad District. though ostensibly a sale was really a mortgage and for redemption of such mortgage. The transaction was effected by the ancestors of the petitioners and original opponent No. 6 in favour of Naranbhai Hirachand sometime in 1901 and the field forming the subject matter of the transaction was thereafter sold by Naranbhai Hirachand to the ancestor of Opponents Nos. 1 to 4 some- time in 1914. It appears that thereafter the respective parties to these transactions died and at the date when the suit was filed Opponents Nos. 1 to 4 were the only heirs of the ancestor who purchased the field from Naranbhai Hirachand and Opponent No. 5 was the only heir of Naranbhai Hirachand and if the transaction was a transaction of mortgage the peti- tioners and the original Opponent No. 6 would be the mortgagors. The suit was therefore filed by the petitioners against opponents Nos. 1 to 4 and 5 and since the original opponent No. 6 did not join as a co-plaintiff he was impleaded as a party defendant to the suit. Subsequent to the filing of the suit the Act carne into force in the Ahmedabad District and the petitioners thereupon filed an application for adjustment of their debts under sec. 4 of the Act in the Court of the Civil Judge Junior Division Ahmedabad- bad which was the Debt Adjustment Court within the meaning of sec. 2 (3) of the Act. This application was numbered 1257/47 and on the filing of the application the suit which was pending in the Civil Court was trans- ferred to the Debt Adjustment Court under sec. 19 of the Act and was numbered as Application No. 19 of 1949. These two applications were thereafter consolidated and fixed for hearing on the same day for the decision of the preliminary issues referred to in sec. 17 of the Act. On the date fixed for the hearing of the applications both the petitioners were absent and the learned Judge of the Debt Adjustment Court accordingly dismissed the applications for want of appearance of the petitioners. The petitioners thereupon preferred two applications one bearing Miscellaneous Application No. 5 of 1952 for setting aside the order of dismissal of appli- cation No. 1257 of 1947 and the other bearing Miscellaneous Application No. 6 of 1952 for setting aside the order of dismissal of Application No. 19 of 1949. The ground on which these miscellaneous applications were made was that the petitioners had sufficient cause for not remaining present on the date fixed for hearing of the aforesaid main applications and that the orders of dismissal of the main applications passed by the learned Judge should therefore be set aside. The learned Judge allowed Miscel- laneous Application No. 5 of 1952 but dismissed Miscellaneous Application No. 6 of 1952. On review however the order made in Miscellaneous Application No. 5 of 1952 was set aside and that Miscellaneous Applica- tion was also dismissed. The result was that the orders dismissing both the main applications remained intact. The petitioners thereupon preferred Revision Applications to the High Court and the High Court set aside the orders of dismissal in regard to both the main applications and remanded the main applications to the Debt Adjustment Court for hearing on merits.

( 2 ) NOW it appears that after the main applications were remanded attempts were made to serve Opponents Nos. 1 to 4 but according to the petitioners those attempts were unsuccessful and ulti

Click Here to Read the rest of this document