U.C.Srivastava, J. - (1.) This petition is directed against the revisional order passed by the court of the District Judge in a revision under section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act preferred against the judgment and decree passed by the court of Judge Small Cause dismissing the application of the defendant under Order 9, Rule 13, Civil Procedure Code.
(2.) The plaintiffs filed a suit for ejectment and arrears of rent against the defendants on certain grounds. Defendants 1 to 5 filed separate statement in which it was pleaded that they are tenants of the shop in dispute and defendant No. 6 was in possession and was tenant in his own right. 22nd February, 1973 was fixed for framing of issues and the suit was transferred to the Judge Small Causes on 1st January, 1973. From 22nd February,1973 to 19th January,1975 the case was adjourned on various dates. On 20th January, 1975 proceedings for appointment of legal representatives of defendant No. 2 started which continued upto 15th October, 1976 when the application was dismissed. The case was fixed on December 17, 1976 for hearing on which date the parties did not turn-up, but it was noted that they were not informed and the case was fixed on 4th February, 1977, on which date the plaintiffs were present, but the defendants were absent. The courts were closed due to Ravidas Jyanti, as such 14th February, 1977 was fixed in the case and it was directed that the parties be informed. On 14th February, 1977 plaintiffs were present, but the defendants were absent and the case was adjourned to 15th April,1977 on which date the Presiding Officer was on leave and the case was adjourned to 5th May, 1977. On this date ex parte evidence was recorded and 10th May, 1977 was fixed for judgment. On 10th May, 1977 the suit was decreed ex parte and thereafter on 28th July, 1977 defendant No. 6 moved an application for setting aside the said ex parte decree purporting to be under Order 9, Rule 13, Civil Procedure Code with the allegation that he learnt about the decree on 13th July, 1977 when the Amin went to the spot for the delivery possession.
(3.) The application for setting aside the ex parte decree was opposed and trial court came to the conclusion that the petitioner has failed to make a case for setting aside ex parte decree and the delay has not been sufficiently explained in filing the application beyond 30 days and held that it deserves to be rejected, consequently it was rejected.;