Honble GOYAL, J.–This is the revision under Section 115 C.P.C. filed by the defendant-petitioner Ladu Ram against the order dated 10.1.2003, whereby learned Additional District Judge No. 5, Jaipur City, Jaipur, affirmed the order dated 29.4.2000 by which Additional Civil Judge (West), Jaipur City, Jaipur, dismissed the application under Or. 9 Rule 13 C.P.C.

(2). Briefly narrated the facts are that the plaintiff Smt. Gyatri filed a suit for rent and eviction against the two defendants Mangal Singh and Ladu Ram - the present petitioner in November 1995 with the averments that one room in her house at Jaipur was let out to the defendant No. 1 Mangal Singh on monthly rent of Rs. 16/-. The eviction was sought on the grounds of default in payment of rent, the tenant has built his own house and sub-let the room to his brother-the defendant No. 2 Ladu Ram and material alterations. Both the defendants appeared through their counsel on 16.1.1996. At their prayer the case was adjourned for filing the written statements. Thereafter none appeared for the defendants on 12.7.1996. The Trial Court proceeded exparte.

(3). Having recorded the statement of P.W.1 Rameshwar Prasad, power of attorney holder of the plaintiff and P.W.2 Arvind Kumar, exparte decree of eviction was passed vide judgment dated 22.2.1997.

(4). The defendant Ladu Ram filed an application under Or. 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. on 26.9.1997 for setting-aside the exparte decree on the grounds mentioned in this application. The plaintiff contested this application by filing her reply. The second defendant Mangal Singh did not appear.

(5). An application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was also moved on behalf of the defendant Ladu Ram.

(6). The Trial Court recorded the statements of Ladu Ram, A.W. 2 Smt. Kamla and the statements of Rameshwar Prasad and P.K. Tiwari were recorded on behalf of the plaintiff.

(7). Learned Trial Court vide order dated 29.4.2000, dismissed both the applications under Section 5 of the limitation Act and under Or. 9 Rule 13 C.P.C.

(8). First appeal preferred by defendant Ladu Ram was also dismissed by learned Additional District Judge No. 5, Jaipur City, Jaipur, vide impugned order dated 10.1.2003.

(9). I have heard learned counsel for the parties. According to the Or. 9 R. 13 C.P.C. if the defendant satisfies the Court that he was prevented by any sufficient cause from appearing when the suit was called on for hearing, the Court shall make an order setting-aside the exparte decree upon such terms as to costs etc.

(10). Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1963 provides that any appeal or any application, may be admitted after the prescribed period, if the appellant or the applicant satisfies the court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making the application within such period.

(11). As per Art. 123 of the Limitation Act an application to set-aside a decree passed ex parte may be filed within thirty days from the date of decree or where the summons or notice was not duly served, when the applicant had knowledge of the decree.

(12). In the instant case, it is not in dispute that both the defendants are brothers and they appeared through their separate counsel in the Court on 16.1.1996. The case was adjourned to 3.2.1996 for submission of written statement. The case was again adjourned to 12.7.1996 for filing the written statement but on 12.7.1996 none of the defendants appeared, hence the Court ordered to proceed exparte. Thereafter evidence was recorded and decree was passed on 22.2.1997.

(13). The application by one defendant Shri Ladu Ram for setting- aside exparte decree was filed on 26.9.1997 i.e. after a delay of more than seven months. Now the question is as to whether the defendant Ladu Ram has explained this delay upto the satisfaction of the Court ? Learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant contended that he engaged Shri K.L. Dangi as his counsel who assured him to take care of the case but he never informed the defendant about any da

Click Here to Read the rest of this document