- (1.) The applicants taluqdar of Hasanpur, filed a suit in the Revenue Court against Salik Ram Paras Nath Sobh Nath, three brothers, for recovery of under-proprietary rent When the summonses were sent for service it was reported that Salik Ram and Paras Nath are employed in the army and were not present, and their brother Sobh Nath refused to accept service on their behalf. Sobh Nath filed a written statement wherein he mentioned that his two brothers, the other Defendants, were employed in the army and the proceedings ought to be stayed according to Military law. An application was also given to the same effect. On the 23rd September, 1944, the Revenue Court passed following order: As the interest of a soldier is involved, the proceedings are stayed.
(2.) It is against this order that the present application in revision has been filed. The learned Counsel on behalf of the applicant has stated that the procedure adopted by the Revenue Court was entirely, illegal and that the order was not justified. The opposite parties have been served, but no appearance has been made on their behalf. The learned Counsel for the applicant has cited Sahdeo Singh v. Charan, kuer, 5 OWN 604 in which it has been held that where an order of Under Section 10 of the Code of Code of Civil Procedure is passed it can be paid that there is a case decided within the meaning of Section 115 of the Code of Civil procedure. Under Section 276 of, the Tenancy Act, the right to file an application in revision is given When there is a case decided. In the present case also, since the proceedings have been stayed, it must be taken that a case has been decided and so a revision lies.
(3.) On the merits it seems to me that the order of the Revenue Court was not according to law. Under Section 6 of the Soldiers (Litigation) Act, 4 of 1925, when the Court has reason to believe that an Indian Soldier, who is a party to any proceeding pending before it, is unable to appear therein, and if the soldier is not represented by any, person only authorised to appear, plead or act, on his behalf, the Court shall, suspend the proceeding, and shall, give notice thereof in the prescribed manner to the prescribed authority. In the present case no such notice has apparently been given with the result that further proceedings are required Under Sections 7 and have not been taken, and thus the procedure prescribed by law has not been followed. The Revenue Court has acted with material irregularity in staying proceedings without complying first with the provisions of Sections 7 or 8 of the Act, as the case may be.;