Wanchoo, C. J.—This is a revision by Sewa Ram against an order of the District Judge of Pali.

2. The facts, which have led to this revision are these. A suit had been filed by Misrimal & others against the applicant. It was fixed for hearing on the 29th of July, 1950. On that date, the applicant was absent, and an order was passed that the suit should proceed ex parte, and the written statement of the applicant should be struck off. When the matter came up again for hearing on the 23rd of August, 1950, the applicant appeared, and it was contended on his behalf that the ex parte order was only for that day viz., the 30th of July, 1950, and that the applicant could appear in the suit thereafter without having the ex parte order set aside. The learned District Judge, however, held that the applicant could not appear in the suit so long as the ex parte order stood, and that he had to apply for setting aside the ex parte order of the 29th of July, 1950. Eventually, the District Judge set aside the ex parte order, and permitted the applicant to appear in the suit on payment of Rs. 100/- as costs. The order striking off the written statement was also set aside.

3. The applicant has come up to this Court, and contends that it was not necessary for him to apply for setting aside the ex parte order, and that he should have been permitted to appear in the suit on the 23rd of August, 1950, and take part in the proceedings from that date, and that the order of the District Judge, by which he was asked to pay Rs. 100/-as damages, was in excess of his Jurisdiction.

4. This argument is based on the interpretation, which learned counsel puts, on Order IX, Rule 7, of the Code of Civil Procedure which reads as follows :—

"Where the court has adjourned the hearing of the suit ex-parte, and the defendant, at on before such hearing, appears and assigns good cause for his previous non-appearance, he may, upon such terms as the court directs as to costs or otherwise, be heard in answer to the suit as if he had appeared on the day fixed for his appearance.

The argument is that, as the applicant did not want to be put in the position as if he had appeared on the day fixed for his appearance, and merely wanted to take part in the proceedings from the 23rd of August, 1950, Order IX, Rule 7, had no application to his case, and he should have been allowed to appear from that date without being made to pay damages for setting aside the ex parte order passed on the 29th of July. The leading case on the subject, on which learned counsel places reliance, is (Gokarakonda) Venlcatasubbiah V. Daliparthi Lakshmi-narasimham (A.I.R. 1925 Madras 1274). In that case Wallace J. relied on the words "be heard in answer to the suit as if he had appeared on the day fixed for his appearance", and said that Order IX, Rule 7, applied to a party who wished to be relegated back to the position which he could have been in if he had appeared at a previous hearing at which he had been absent, and who wished the proceedings taken in his absence to be taken over again in his presence. He also went on to say that ex parte only meant that the party had not been heard because he had been absent and the adjournment of the hearing ex parte in words of Rule 7 applied only to the hearing on the particular day when that hearing and adjournment ex parte had been made. He further observed that there was one cardinal principle applicable to trials by courts, namely, that a party had a right to appear and plead his cause on all occasions when that cause came on for hearing. He relied on three earlier cases, namely, Munnu V. Tulsi (A.I.R. 1922 All. 33), Bhagwat Prasad Tewari V. Muhammad Shibli (A.I.R. 1923 All. no), and Satyendra Nath V. Narendra (A.I.R. 1924 Gal. 806).

5. This Madras case was followed in Harba V. Alt. Chandmbhaga (A.I.R. 1931 Nagpur 122) Mehraj Din and another V. Hans Raj and others (A.I.R. 1931 Lahore 616 (i), Perumal Naicken V. Rondama Naicken and another (A.I.R. 1939 Madras 385),

Click Here to Read the rest of this document