SHARMA J—This is a civil revision by Gopal Dass, plaintiff, under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, against an order of the Additional Munsiff, Court No. 2, Jodhpur, restoring an application for setting aside the ex-parte decree, which was dismissed for default of the defendant non-petitioners appearance on 10th October, 1975.

2. The relevant facts giving rise to this revision-petition may be briefly stated as follows: —

3. Gopal Dass, petitioner, obtained a money decree on 2nd August, 1971, against Ram Chandra, defendant, in Civil Suit No 135 of 1971. Ram Chandra applied under Order IX Rule 13, C.P.C for setting aside the ex-parte decree passed against him by the Additional Munsiff, Court No. 2, Jodhpur, on the ground that the summons in suit was not served on him by registered post as he was not present in Gulabpura on 30th July, 1970 and had gone to Bhusawal to look after his land and orchard. He came to know about the ex-parte decree on 26th Febuary, 1975 having been passed against him from a peon of the court of Munsiff. Gulabpura, and so he rushed to the court of the Additional Munsiff, No. 2, Jodhpur, on 14th March, 1975 and applied for setting aside the ex-parte decree on 15th March, 1975. The learned Additional Munsiff No. 2, Jodhpur, upon receiving an application for setting aside the ex-parte decree, issued notice thereof to Gppal Dass, decree-holder, to appear before him on 11th July, 1975. On 11th July, 1975, it appears that notice was not served on Gopal Dass, decree-holder. So the case was adjourned to 6th September, 1975, with a direction that a fresh notice be issued to Gopal Dass. On 6th September, 1975, notice could not be issued to Gopal Dass because Ram Chandra did not file fresh notice. It was ordered that notice be issued to Gopal Dass as soon as it is filed by Ram Chandra, The case was adjourned to 10th October, 1975. On 10th October, 1975, neither Ram Chandra, nor any counsel on his behalf appeared in the court when the case was taken-up for hearing Hence, the learned Additional Munsiff No. 2, Jodhpur, dismissed the application for setting aside the ex-parte decree for default of appearance of Ram Chandra, Later on, Ram Chandra applied for restoration of the application for setting aside the ex-parte decree which had been dismissed for default. It was alleged in the application for restoration that on 10th October, 1975, his counsel Shri Sohan Lal could not attend the court when the case was called on forbearing, as he had gone to village Sanwalata-Khurd, Tehsil Pali, in connection with Navratri Puja. Shri Sohan Laldid not inform Ram Chandra that he would not be available in Jodhpur on 10th October, 1975, and so the latter also could not put in his appearance in the court when the application for setting aside the ex parte decree was taken-up for hearing. The Additional Munsiff No. 2, Jodhpur, restored the application for setting aside the ex-parte decree on payment of costs of Rs. 50/, to Gopal Dass, plaintiff Gopal Dass, has, therefore, challenged the legality of this order in this revision-petition.

4. I have carefully gone through the record and heard Mr, B.K. Moha-nani, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Rewa Chand appearing on behalf of Ram Chandra, con petitioner It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that the Additional Munsiff No. 2, Jodhpur, committed an error of law in restering the application for setting aside the ex parte-decree, which had been dismissed for default, in exercise of his inherent powers under section 151, Civil Procedure Code. According to Mr. Mohanani, the Additional Munsiff No. 2, could not exercise his inherent power as the order of rejection of the application for setting aside the ex-parte decree was appealable under Order 43 Rule 1(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure and Ram Chandra did not chase to avail of this right of appeal provided by the statute. In support of his above contention, Mr. B.K. Mohanani relied upon Arjun Singh vs. Mohindra K

Click Here to Read the rest of this document