M.L.BHAT, J. - (1.) AN order against the petitioner was passed ex parte. He seems to have applied under Rule 32 of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Rules, 1972. That Rule provides that where an ex parte order is passed, including an order under Section 8 also, the litigant against whom ex parte order is passed, may apply to the authority which had passed the order, for setting aside the ex parte order or for restoration, as the case may be. Such authority may, for sufficient cause, set aside the order which was ex parte. Meaning thereby, if no sufficient cause is shown, such authority is empowered to refuse to set aside the ex parte order.
(2.) THE impugned order reveals that the Court below has refused to apply Rule 32 to the application moved by the petitioner before him on the ground that the petitioner had appeared before him and had sought adjournment and his conduct was not free from doubt. However, it is admitted that when the order was passed or the arguments were heard, the petitioner was not present before the Court below. As such the order passed by the Court below will be ex parte against the petitioner to which Rule 32 of the Rules would apply and the petitioner is entitled to make an application under the said Rule. The Court below was not bound to set aside the ex parte order if sufficient cause was not shown for setting aside the ex parte order. It could set aside the ex parte order only on being satisfied that sufficient cause did exist for setting aside the ex parte order. This is a matter which was within the domain of the Court below and would depend on the facts of the case which would be unfolded before the Court below by the learned counsel for the parties. It was, however, wrong that Rule 32 has no application to the facts of the case. Once an ex parte order is passed, Rule 32 of the Rules provides a remedy which remedy can be availed of by the litigant. Learned Counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner had alternative remedy of appeal, therefore, he should have exhausted that remedy first and this writ petition is not maintainable. The filing of an appeal is not only remedy. The petitioner has remedy under Rule 32 also. Therefore, it is not a case where bar of exhaustion of alternative remedy will stand in the way of the petitioner to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. That being so, the writ petition is maintainable. The order impugned in this writ petition is not in accordance with law and is opposed to the provision of Rule 32 of Rules 1972. Therefore, the same deserves to be set aside.
(3.) THE writ petition is accordingly allowed and the impugned order dated 4.2.1988 is set aside. Respondent No. 1 is directed to consider the application under Rule 32 in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made hereinabove and decide the application by a reasoned order expeditiously.;