- (1.) THIS is an application in revision against the order dated 26-2-1966 of Shri G. D. Dube, Munsif, Ballia (West) setting aside the ex parte decree under Order IX, Rule 13, C.P.C.
(2.) THE facts leading to this application in revision are not disputed and may be narrated as follows. The plaintiff-applicant filed a suit for the recovery of Rs. 510 as damages for certain wood alleged to have been cut and misappropriated by the defendants. Defendant No. 1 alone filed a written statement and resisted the claim on various grounds. Issues were framed in the case on 7-12-1964 and 12-3-1965 was fixed for final hearing. On that date defendant No. 1 was absent and his counsel moved an application for adjournment and the case was adjourned to 9-7-1965. On 9-7-1965 the Presiding Officer was absent and the case was adjourned to 3-9-1965. On 3-9-1965 an application 21-D was moved on behalf of defendant No. 1 for the adjournment of the case on the ground that defendant No. 1 was busy at Lucknow in connection with a no-confidence motion against the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly. This application was rejected by the trial court. The learned counsel who moved the application 21-D, that day stated that he had no further instructions in the case. The Court then proceeded against the defendants ex parte and decreed the plaintiff's suit Later on, defendant No. 1 moved an application under Order IX, Rule 13, C. P. C. for setting aside the ex parte decree. This application was opposed by the plaintiff-applicant. It was contended by the plaintiff-applicant in the Court below that the decision will be deemed to have been on merits and there was no question of setting aside the ex parte decree. The trial court overruled this contention and held that the suit had been decreed ex parte and it should be set aside. He, therefore, set aside the ex parte decree on payment of Rs. 20 as costs to the plaintiff-applicant.
(3.) THE plaintiff has now come up in revision before me.;