R.N.Mittal, J. - (1.) THIS revision petition has been filed by M/s Radha Balabh and Sons Defendant against the order of the District Judge, Patiala, dated December 30, 1976.
(2.) BRIEFLY the facts of the case are that M/s Ganga Din Har Parshad, Commission Agents, Mandi Gobindgarh, instituted a suit on June 11, 1969. for recovery of Rs. 17,200 against M/s Radha Balabh and Sons, Defendant in the Court of Subordinate Judge, 1st Class, Amloh Camp at Nabha. Summons regarding the suit were issued to the Defendant on various dates from June 13, 1969 to July 6, 1970. On some of the occasions it was also ordered by the Court that the summons be issued under registered cover. The service of the Defendant, however, was not effected. On July 6, 1970, the Court ordered that the Defendant be served for August 4, 1970. After July 6, 1970, the Plaintiff filed an application for substituted service on the ground that the Defendant was evading service. The Court accepted the application and passed an order that the Defendant be served by citation in the Tribune for August 4, 1970. In pursuance of the order of the Court, citation was issued in the Tribune on July 22, 1970. The Defendant in spite of the said citation did not appear in the Court on August 4, 1970. The Court consequently took ex -parte proceedings against the Defendant and adjourned the case to August 27, 1970, for ex -parte evidence. It recorded the evidence on that date and adjourned the case to August 29, 1970, for arguments. After hearing the arguments on behalf of the Plaintiff the Court passed a decree for recovery of Rs. 17,200 against the Defendant on the same date, i.e., August 29, 1970. The Defendant moved an application on May 31, 1971, for setting aside the ex parte decree. It was opposed by the Plaintiff. The trial Court held that there was no sufficient ground for setting aside the ex -parte decree and that the application was also not within limitation. Consequently it dismissed the same. The Defendant went up in appeal before the District Judge, Patiala, who affirmed the order of the trial Court and dismissed it. It has come up in revision against the order of the District Judge to, this Court.
(3.) THE learned Counsel for the Plaintiff -Respondent has raised a preliminary objection that no revision petition against the impugned order was maintainable. In support of his contention he referred to Jokhi Ram Mohan Lal v. Smt. Gita Devi Tulsyan, A.I.R. 1978 Pat 2. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties but regret my inability to accept the contention of Mr. Achhra Singh. In order to determine this question it is necessary to refer to Section 115 Code of Civil Procedure which is as follows: (1) The High Court may call for the record of any case which has been decided by any Court subordinate to such High Court and in which no appeal lies thereto, and if such subordinate Court appears - - (a) to have exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or (b) to have failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or (c) to have acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity, the High Court may make such order in the case as it thinks fit: (2) The High Court shall not under this section, vary or reverse any decree or order against which an appeal lies either to the High Court or to any Court subordinate thereto.;