A. N. Dikshita, J. - (1.) AGGRIEVED by the judgment and order dated 4-8-1986 passed by the 8th Additional District Judge, Kanpur City, in Misc. Case No. 16/74 of 1986, by which an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC read with section 151 CPC filed by the applicant for setting aside the judgment and order dated 18-3-1986 decreeing the suit ex-parte has been rejected, this Civil Revision has been preferred by the applicant.
(2.) IN a narrow campus the facts are that the plaintiff opposite party filed a suit for the eviction and recovery of arrears of rent against the applicant in the court of District Judge, Kanpur City. The applicant after putting in his appearance filed an application on 18-2-1986 praying for granting a month's time to file a written statement which was allowed and time up to 18-3-1986 was granted to file the necessary written statement. To ascertain certain facts and relevant dates the record of the lower court was summoned. On 21-2-1986 the suit pending in the court of the District Judge, Kanpur City, was transferred to the Court of 8th Additional District Judge, Kanpur City, for disposal according to law. On 18-3-1986 when the case was taken up by the transferee Court i. e. the 8th Additional District Judge, neither the applicant was present in the said court nor any written statement was filed. Naturally orders to proceed ex parte in the suit were passed for the absence of the applicant. On that very date i. e 18-3-1986 the 8th Additional District Judge, Kanpur City, decreed the suit ex parte. The applicant came to know about the suit having been decreed ex parte against him by the 8th Additional District Judge on 19-4-1986 The applicant filed an application under Older 9 Rule 13 CPC on 23-4-1986 for setting aside the decree passed ex parte and for the restoration of the suit to its original number for disposal according to law. The court below while disposing of the application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC found that sufficient cause had been shown by the applicant for his non-appearance on 18-3-1986 for want of an information as regards the transfer of the case from the court of the District Judge, Kanpur City, to the court of the 8th Additional District Judge, Kanpur City as neither the counsel of the applicant nor the applicant himself was ever informed of such transfer. However, though accepting the reason as sufficient for the non-appearance of the applicant on 18-3-1986, the court below found that the application was not entertainable as the applicant had failed to comply with the provisions of section 17 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act and ultimately rejected the application filed by the applicant under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC for setting aside the decree passed ex parte by the order dated 4-8-1986.
(3.) THE rejection of such application has given rise to the instant Civil Revision. Learned counsel for the applicant, Sri O. P. Singh, has been heard Sri Sheo Mohan Dayal, Advocate, appeared for the opposite party and he, too, has been heard at some length.;