THAKURSINGH Vs. BHAIRONLAL
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Click here to view full judgement.
Sharma, J. -
(1.) 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 8-7-1953.
(2.) The facts are that the opposite party Bhaironlal and Bal Kishan filed a suit for the recovery of Rs. 423/- against the applicants. This suit was instituted in the Court of Munsif. Bari. Sri Narain Swaroop appeared as a pleader for the defendantapplicant's 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 22-8-1952 but on that date arguments could not be heard and the case was fixed for the remaining arguments of the defendants on 29-8-1952. On the last mentioned date the arguments on behalf of the defendants were concluded and 12-9--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 no other Munsif was posted in his place. Thereafter sometimes parties appeared and sometimes they did not appear and ultimately the case was transferred from the Court of Munsif, Bari to the 'Court of Munsif, Dholpur. On 20-5-1953 the case was put up before the Munsif, Dholpur, who fixed 20-51953 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 28-5-1953, 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, Civil P. C., 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 29-5-1953 for judgment. Judgment could not be pronounced on 29-5-1953 nor on 30-5-1953 which was further fixed for the pronouncement of the Judgment and 6-7-1953 was fixed. On the last mentioned date also the judgment could not be pronounced but it was ultimately pronounced on 8-7-1953 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 5-10-1953. 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 alone 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.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.