Honble YADAV, J. – The instant revision petition has been filed against the order dated 26.10.95 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Udaipur (South), Udaipur by means of which, he has rejected the application moved by the revisionist under Sec. 151, CPC for setting aside the ex parte decree dated 3.9.94.

(2). Brief facts necessary to be noticed for disposal of the instant revision are that a suit for eviction was filed against the present revisionist in which his defence was struck off and against the said order, he filed an appeal before the learned District Judge, Udaipur, which was dismissed.

(3). Against dismissal of the appeal, he filed a revision before this Court which was admitted and ad interim stay order was granted on 10.5.1994. It appears from the impugned order that the case was posted for orders on 27.7.94 and on that day, none was present on behalf of the respondent-plaintiff, who is non- petitioner here in the present petition. On 27.7.94, the ad interim stay order dated 10.5.94 was allowed to continue till further orders, which reads thus, –

``Honble Mr. N.C. Kochhar, J.

Mr. V.L. Mathur, for the petitioner

None for the respondent

Although Shri D.R. Bhandari has filed power on behalf of the respondent but his name has not been shown in the Cause List and it appears for this reason, he is not present. List the case on 17.8.94 after showing the names of the learned counsel for the parties in the Cause List. Interim order dated 10.5.94 is continued till further orders .

Sd/- N.C. Kochhar, J.

(4). It appears that the stay order, which was extended on 27.7.94 was not communicated to the learned trial court, therefore, it proceeded with the suit and passed an ex parte decree on 3.9.94.

(5). The present defendant-revisionist moved an application on 17.12.94 alleging therein that he got knowledge of the ex parte decree on 25.11.94. In the aforesaid application for setting aside the ex parte decree dated 3.9.94, it is clearly stated that ad interim stay order was granted by this Court on 10.5.94 and it was allowed to continue till further orders on 27.7.94 yet the plaintiff-opposite-party concealing the aforesaid facts from the learned trial court obtained ex parte decree fraudulently. According to the revisionist, the said conduct of the non- petitioner amounts fraud on the Court.

(6). Indisputably, irrespective of the fact that it was brought to the notice of the learned trial court that the ad interim stay order dated 10.5.94 was allowed to continue till further orders of this Court on 27.7.94 yet he declined to set aside the ex parte decree dated 3.9.94.

(7). Aggrieved against the impugned order rejecting the application under Sec. 151, CPC to set aside the ex parte decree dated 3.9.94, the defendant-revisionist filed the present revision before this Court.

(8). I have heard learned counsel for the parties and with their consent, the instant revision is hereby finally disposed of at admission stage.

(9). First contention of learned counsel for the revisionist before me is that the stay order takes effect from the moment it is passed and the fact that the court which was supposed to obey stay order even has no knowledge of it makes no difference and all the proceedings taken in the present case after stay order was allowed to continue till further orders by this Court on 27.7.94 are without jurisdiction and as such the exparte decree dated 3.9.94 is liable to be set aside on this ground alone.

(10). It is next contended by the learned counsel for the revisionist that atleast when the revisionist moved an application under Sec. 151 CPC for setting aside the ex parte decree before the same Court and stay order dated 27.7.94 passed by this Court was brought to its notice then ex-parte decree ought to have been set aside in the interest of justice. In support of his argument, learned counsel for the revisionist placed reliance on a decision rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Mulraj vs. Murti Raghunathji Maharaj

Click Here to Read the rest of this document