G. P. Mathur, J. - (1.) The controversy involved in the two writ petitions is interconnected and therefore, they are being disposed of by a common order.
(2.) Writ Petition No. 10344 of 1979 has been filed by Gorakhpur University (University in short) for quashing of the ex-parte judgment and decree dated 29- 5-1978 as well as the orders dated 4-7-1979 and 8-9-1979 by which the application moved by the University for setting aside the ex-parte decree was rejected by the learned Munsif and learned District Judge in revision.
(3.) Shesh Nath Tripathi filed suit No. 691 of 1976 on 5-6-1976 in the Court of Munsif Deoria impleading (i) Committee of Management of Swami Devanand Snatak Madhavidyalay (College for short), (ii) Vice-Chancellor, Gorakhpur University, and (iii) Bachcha Prasad Pandey as defendants. The relief claimed in the suit was that it be declared that the plaintiff was entitled to benefits of a lecturer in accordance with the Rules of Gorakhpur University and for injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in his work and right to get the benefits of the post of lecturer. Committee of Management of the College (defendant No. 1) filed a written statement denying the plaintiff's case on 1-11-1976 The suit was decreed ex-parte in favour of the plaintiff on 29 5-1978 The Committee of Management of the College (defendant No. 1) filed a restoration application under Order IX Rule 13 and Section 151, C. P. C. on 23-7-1978 on the ground inter alia that the suit was pending in the Court of Munsif and 24-4-1978 was the date fixed ; that on the said date the case was not listed in the court of learned Munsif and it was informed that the details of the suit may be found out from the office ; that enquiry was made in the office but no details of the suit could be found out that the applicant (defendant No. 1) was informed that some other date after two or three months would be fixed for which necessary intimation would be given on him that the counsel of the defendants was also not given any information ; that the plaintiff came to the institution a day prior and informed that he was entitled to work as the suit had been decreed on 29-5-1978 ; that the defendant No. 1 then contacted its counsel and on enquiry and inspection it was revealed that without any notice the suit had been transferred from the Court of Munsif to that of the Court of VJI Addl. Munsif and had been decreed by the said court ex-parte on 29-5-1978 It was accordingly prayed that the ex-parte decree may be set aside. This application moved by defendant No. I was registered as Misc. Case No. 25 of 1978. However, shortly after filing of the restoration application, the State Government superseded the Committee of Management of the College which had been arrayed as defendant No. 1 in the suit and which had filed the restoration application on 23-7-1978, and appointed an authorised Controller. On 9-9-1978 a two line application was moved in Misc. Case No. 25 of 1978 stating that the Committee of Management had decided not to contest the case against Shesh Nath Tripathi and praying that restoration application be dismissed. The Committee of Management again moved an application on 2-4-1979 praying that the application moved by it on 9-9-1978 be rejected. The Vice-Chancellor of Gorakhpur University (defendant No. 2 to the of Gorkhpur University (defendant no. 2 to the suit) also filed a restoration application under Order IX Rule 13, C.P.C. on 10-4-1979 for setting aside the exparte decree dated 29-5-1978 and that application was registered as Misc. Case No. 37 of 1979 The application was moved on the ground inter alia that the plaintiff was never selected nor appointed as lecturer in the College, that there were many Degree Colleges situated in eight different districts which were affiliated to Gorakhpur University and in the district of Deoria, Sri Prem Shauker Srivastava advocate was a retainer counsel for the University ; that after receipt of notice the Vice-Chancellor had sent the vakalatnama to Sri Prem Shanker Srivastava who had assured that he would give timely information of further proceedings in the suit ; that on account of want of information the suit was decreed on 29-5-1973 ; that after receipt of notice of the restoration application filed by defendant No. 1 a vakalatnama had been sent to the counsel; that on 4-4-1979 it was learnt that the counsel for the University had not moved any application ; that the staff of the University instead of itself doing the pairavi of the case got the same done through its legal adviser ; that the legal adviser never informed the University that a restoration application ought to have been filed ; that on account of the fault of the legal adviser the University was suffering great loss. It was accordingly prayed that the ex-parte decree dated 29-5-1978 may be set aside. Though the decree passed in the suit was a composite one against all the defendants and the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 had both moved restoration applications which were registered separately, but the two Misc. cases were not consolidated and proceeded separately and were decided by separate orders The restoration application moved by defendant No 1 was rejected on 25-4-1979 and that of the University (defendant No. 2) was rejected on 4-7-1979. The University filed a revision against the order of the learned Munsif and the same was also dismissed by V Additional District Judge on 8-9-1979.;