1. In this revision order dated 23-04-1996 of District Judge, Srinagar in Appeal case No. 37/93 on the file of that Court is impugned.

2. Respondents 1 to 3 preferred a suit before District Judge, Srinagar, which was transferred to the Court of City Munsiff, Srinagar, The suit is for ejectment of building and the premises situated at Dalgate Srinagar (more specifically referred to in plaint) on the grounds specified in para 6 of the plaint. The defendants appeared and filed written statement on 29-10-1998 in the suit. Thereafter the defendants failed to appear in the suit and were set exparte on 11-11-1989. After evidence was recorded, the case stands decided and decreed exparte on 20-4-1992.

3. The defendant Farooq Ahmad filed an application for setting aside the exparte decree in the trial court of City Munsiff, Srinagar on 3-9-1993, mainly on the ground that Mr. Khardoori counsel for the defendants left valley as migrant and did not appear before the Court and at the same time defendants were not informed by the counsel of his migration, therefore, they were set exparte The defendants non-appearance was neither deliberate nor intentional For the said cause, the exparte was prayed to be set aside. The trial court after inviting objections and on hearing the matter found no sufficient cause for non-appearance and condonation of delay and therefore dismissed the application.

4. The defendant-Farooq Ahmad Bhat, preferred an appeal against exparte judgment and decree dated 21-7-97 of City Munsiff Srinagar on the grounds stated therein The learned District Judge dismissed the appeal on 23-4-1996

5. In this revision the orders of the District Judge Srinagar and the City Munsiff dismissing the appeal and the application for setting aside the exparte decree are challenged on the ground that Mr. M.N. Khardoori, advocate engaged by the defendants to defend the suit before the trial court failed to appear before the court below as he had migrated from the valley with mass exodus of Kashmiri Pandits. Mr. Khardoori did not inform, the defendants of his migration and his failure to appear before the Court resulted in passing of exparte decree on 20-4-1992 against the defendants. The moment petitioners came to know about the exparte decree they preferred an application for setting aside the decree under Order 9 Rule 13 of C.P C and for condonation of delay on 3-9-93. However, the trial court dismissed the application on 21 -7-1994 Petitioners filed an appeal against this order before the District Judge, Srinagar the appellate forum. But the appeal was also dismissed on 23-4-1996. Both the trial court as well as the appellate Court have failed to administer substantial justice and in so far as both courts have rushed to dispose of the matter on technical considerations. Both courts have not been responsive to the latest trend of liberal approach of the High Court and the Apex Court in condoning the delays, even though, sufficient cause was there. Both courts have not appreciated the matter in right perspective. At one stage even though the case was dismissed on 18-3-91 for non-appearance of the parties, yet the case was restored on the same day at the back of the petitioner without his knowledge and thereby grave error of law was committed. The petitioners have been deprived to take the case before the court on merits and the matter could not be disposed of on merits in absence of the respondents,

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. The counsel for the petitioner has advanced arguments in line with the above pleas taken up in the revision to assail the orders passed by the courts below.

7. The counsel for the respondents has countered the arguments of the petitioners counsel. He submits that the case has not been disposed of by the courts below on technical considerations, but on the ground that the petitioners have utterly failed to prove sufficient cause for non-appearance. They have not appeared before the Courts for years t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document