Sharma, J.—This is an application for revision by the defendants Thakursingh and Bans Singh against the order of the learned Munsif, Dholpur refusing to grant an application for review of the ex-parte judgment dated 8th July, 1953.

2. The facts are that the opposite party Bhaironlal and Bal Kishan filed a suit for the recovery of Rs. 428/- against the applicants. This suit was instituted in the court of Munsif, Bari. Sri Narain Swarup appeared as a pleader for the defendant-applicants in this case. The entire evidence of the plaintiffs and the defendants was recorded before the Munsif, Bari and the plaintiffs arguments were also over. Arguments were made on behalf of the defendants on 8th, 20th and 21st August, 1952. The case came up for remaining arguments of the defendants on the 22nd of August, 1952, but on that date arguments could not be heard and the case was fixed for the remaining arguments of the defendants on 29th August, 1952. On the last mentioned date the arguments on behalf of the defendants were concluded and !2th September, 1952, was fixed for the hearing of the reply on behalf of the plaintiffs. The Munsif, however, who had heard the case till then, was transferred and on other Munsif was posted in his place. Thereafter some-times parties appeared and some-times they did not appear and ultimately the case was transferred from the court of Munsif, Bari to the court of Munsif, Dholpur On 20th May, 1953, the case was put up before the Munsif, Dholpur, who fixed 28th May, 1953, for arguments and ordered that a notice should be issued to the counsel for the defendants about the said date. Such a notice was issued but Sri Narain Swaroop pleader for the defendant-applicants noted down on the notice that he had no concern with the case and, therefore, his clients be personally informed. Learned Munsif, when he took up the case on 28th May, 1953, held that the notice to Sri Narain Swaroop was a notice to the defendants and as no leave had been obtained by him for withdrawing from the case under Order 3, Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Code, the notice to the counsel was sufficient in the circumstances of the case. After making this order the court heard arguments on behalf of the plaintiffs and fixed 29th May, 1953, for judgment. Judgment could not be pronounced on 29th May, 1953, nor on 30th May, 1953, which was further fixed for the pronouncement of the judgment and 6th July, 1953, was fixed. On the last mentioned date also the judgment could not be pronounced but it was ultimately pronounced on the 8th July, 1953, and the suit was decreed ex-parte.

3. The applicants neither filed any appeal against the ex parte decree nor filed any application for the setting aside of the decree under Order 9 Rule 13. He, however filed the application for review out of which this revision application has arisen on the 5th of October, 1953. Various grounds were taken in the application for review but I am concerned only with the following grounds as out of the grounds taken in the review application the following have been pressed before me—

(1) That a notice ought to have been served on the defendants after the transfer of the case to the court of Munsif Dholpur but no such notice was served, and

(2) that no notice was given to the applicants of the date of delivery of judgment and the judgment was delivered in their absence.

4. It was stated that the mistake of not informing the applicants of the date of hearing in the transferee court and the date on which the judgment was to be delivered were mistakes apparent on the face of the record. On the last mentioned point the lower court held that a notice to the pleader of the defendants was in law a notice to the defendants and as a notice of the date fixed for hearing had been served on the pleader, there was no defect or omission to serve notice according to law. On the second ground, it was held that the notice of final hearing was served on the defendants counsel and when neither the defe

Click Here to Read the rest of this document