Heard Sri B.D. Mandhyan, senior counsel assisted by Sri Satish Mandhayan, counsel for the petitioner, Sri D.K.Tripathi appearing for caveator respondent and perused the record.
S.C.C. Suit no. 47 of 1992 was filed by the landlord respondent in the court of Judge, Small Causes, Mathura for ejectment of the petitioner and for recovery of rent for three years @ Rs. 200/- per month. As the petitioner tenant did not appear for about seven years, the trial court passed an order dated 21.7.1999 directing to proceed ex parte. The petitioner filed an application (58 Ga) for recalling the order dated 21.7.1999, which was allowed vide order dated 18.1.2000 and thereafter he again remained absent. The suit in the circumstances was decreed ex parte by judgment and order dated 19.3.2008.
An application under Order 9 Rule 13, C.P.C. alongwith an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act was filed by the petitioner on 2.12.2009 for recalling the order dated 19.3.2008. The trial court found that the cause shown for condoning the delay was not sufficient and accordingly rejected the delay condonation application. As a consequence, the application under Order 9 Rule 13, C.P.C. was also rejected vide order dated 25.2.2010. Relevant extract of the order in this regard is thus :
^^ifjlhek vf/kfu;e ds vuqPNsn 123 ds vuqlkj ,d i{kh; fMdzh dks vikLr djkus dk izkFkZuk i= fMdzh dh rkjh[k ls 30 fnu dh le;kof/k esa izLrqr fd;k tk;sxkA bl izdkj fMdzh dh frfFk ls ,d i{kh; vkns'k fujLr djus dk izkFkZuk i= 30 fnu esa izLrr fd;k tk;sxkA izkfFkZuh us ,d i{kh; fMdzh dh tkudkjh fnukad [email protected]@2009 dks gksuk crk;k gSA bl izdkj ;g izkFkZuk i= djhc ,d o"kZ vkB eghus foyEc ls izLrqr fd;k tk jgk gSA ifjlhek vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk&5 ds vuqlkj dksbZ Hkh vihy ;k izkFkZuk i= fu;r le;kof/k ds i'pkr Hkh Lohdkj fd;k tk ldrk gSA ;fn vihyk.V ;k izkFkhZ U;k;ky; dh ;g lek/kku dj nsrk gS fd fu;e le; esa vihy ;k izkFkZuk i= izLrqr ugha djus dk i;kZIr dkj.k FkkA iz'uxr ekeys esa izkfFkZuh us okn dh iSjoh ugha gks ldh vkSj okn ,d i{kh; :i ls fu.khZr gks x;kA mDr fu.kZ; dh tkudkjh le; ls gh gksus ds dkj.k izkFkZuk i= fu;e le; esa ugha fn;k tk ldkA ewy okn dh i=koyh ds voyksdu ls ;g lkfcr gksrk gS fd fnukad [email protected]@2003 ds ckn ls izfroknuh yxkrkj vuqifLFr jgh gS vkSj fnukad 19-11-2005 dks izfrokfnuh dh vuqifLFkfr ds dkj.k ftjg dk volj lekIr fd;k x;k gSA izkfFkZuh us vius ifr dh e`R;q fnlEcj 2008 es gksuk crk;k gSA bl izdkj izkfFkZuh ds ifr dh e`R;q ds iwoZ ls djhc 5 o"kksZa rd izfrokfnuh vuqifLFkr jgh gSA bl izdkj izkfFkZuh ds bl rdZ esa ;g cy ugha gS fd izkfFkZuh dh ifr dh e`R;q ds dkj.k okn dh iSjoh ugha gks ldhA izkfFkZuh ds }kjk ;g Hkh dFku fd;k x;k gS fd fnukad [email protected]@2004 dks okn varfjr gqvk gS mldh Hkh dksbZ lwpuk ugha nh xbZ gSA lkekU; fu;ekoyh O;ogkj ds fu;e 89 d mi fu;e 03 ds vuqlkj tc vf/kd la[;k esa okn ,d U;k;ky; ls nwljs U;k;ky; esa varfjr fd;s tkrs gS rc mudh lwpuk i{kdkjksa dks fn;k tkuk vko';d ugha gS bl izdkj Hkh izkfFkZuh dks lwpuk fn;s tkus dk dksbZ vkSfpR; ugha gSA izkfFkZuh ds iq= Hkh gS tks okn dh iSjoh dj ldrs FksA ijUrq muds }kjk iSjoh ugha dh xbZA bl izdkj izkfFkZuh dk vkpj.k ls gh izrhr gksrk gS fd mlds }kjk okn dh iSjoh esa ?kksj mis{kk dh xbZ gSA izkfFkZuh dh ykijokgh o mis{kkiw.kZ vkpj.k ds dkj.k gh okn dh dk;Zokgh vuko';d :i ls foyfEcr gksrh jgh gSA ftl edku esa izkfFkZuh fuokl dj jgh gS mlds ckjs esa dkQh le; rd eqdnesackth bl U;k;ky; esa o vU; U;k;ky; esa gksrh jgh gS blds ckn Hkh izkfFkZuh dks okn dh tkudkjh gksuk fdlh n'kk esa fo'okl ;ksX; ugha gSA izkfFkZuh us vius izkFkZuk&i= esa dksbZ dFku vafdr ugha fd;k gS cfYd vkns'k&9 fu;e &13 lh0ih0lh0 ds izkFkZuk i= esa of.kZr dFkuksa ds vk/kkj ij foyEc dh {ke fd;s tkus dh ;kpuk dh gSA blh ds lkFk gh lkFk izkFkZuk i= ds leFkZu esa dksbZ 'kiFki= Hkh izLrqr ugha fd;k gSA izkFkZuk i= esa dksbZ dFku u gksus ds dkj.k izkFkZuk i= iks"k.kh; ugha gSA ekeys ds rF;ksa ,oa ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa izkFkZuk i= 4x Lohdkj gksus ;ksX; ugha gSA vkns'k izkFkZuk i= 4x /kkjk&5 ifjlhek vf/kfu;e [kkfjt fd;k tkrk gSA fnukad% 25-2-2010 g0v0 25-2-2010 v0fl0tt ¼o0[k0½ eFkqjk U;k0 la0 1] fuLrkj.k izkFkZuk i= 6x] vkns'k&9 fu;e&13 flfoy izfdz;k lafgrk izkfFkZuh us y?kqokn la[;k [email protected] guhQ cuke 'kkfUr nsoh esa ikfjr fu.kZ; fnukad 19-3-2008 ds vk/kkj ij ikfjr fMdzh dks vikLr djus gsrq izLrqr fd;k x;k gSA ;g izkFkZuk i= fu;r le;kof/k ds ckgj Fkk ftlds lEcU/k esa izkFkZuk i= izkfFkZuh us izLrqr fd;k Fkk tks [kkfjt fd;k tk pqdk gSA bl izdkj ;g izkFkZuk i= le;kof/k ls ckgj gksus ds dkj.k iks"k.kh; ugha gSA vr% izkFkZuk i= Lohdkj gksus ;ksX; ugha gSA vkns'k izkFkZuk i= 6x vkns'k&9 fu;e &13 fl0iz0la0 [kkfjt fd;k tkrk A fnukad&25-2-2010 g0 v0 25-2-2010 v0fl0 tt ¼o0[k0½ eFkqjk U;k0 la01 Aggrieved by the order aforesad, the petitioner preferred civil revision no. 10 of 2010 against the order dated 25.2.2010 before the District Judge, Mathura. The revisional court after hearing the parties came to the conclusion that it is apparent from record that petitioner remained continuously absent since 25.11.2003 and did not attend the proceedings, with the result that suit was ex parte decreed on 19.3.2008 and that application under Order 9 Rule 13 alongwith delay condonation application was made after one year and eight months and that too on untenable grounds. The revisional court opined that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the trial court has not committed any error in rejecting the application for condonation of delay and the application under Order 9 Rule 13 and accordingly dismissed the revision with cost by judgment and order dated 13.8.2010.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that delay ought to have been condoned in the circumstances and the application for recall under Order 9, Rule 13, C.P.C. was liable to be allowed so that matter was decided on merits. No other point has been argued.
It is apparent from a perusal of Order 9 Rule 13 that the court is to be satisfied for setting aside decree exparte against the defendant that summons had not been duly served and that he was prevented by any sufficient cause from appearing when the suit was called on for hearing.
Though a liberal view is required by the court for restoration of case under Order 9 Rule 13, yet the court must satisfy itself to the sufficiency of it. In the instant case the court below has found that explanation given in the application for recall "that the petitioner got the knowledge about the ex parte decree on 21.11.2009 and before that in December 2008 the death of the husband of the petitioner occurred and during his life time the husband Babu Lal was doing the pairvi of the case and thereafter, after his death there was no one to do the parivi in the case and the suit was transferred from one court to other on 22.3.2004, The notice ought to have been served upon the parties under Rule 89-A of the General Rules (Civil) but no notice was served and the case was transferred without any notice, averments made were not sufficient" was not sufficient.
The Court arrived at a definite finding that application for recall suffered from unexplained latches. The proceedings had already been ordered to be held exparte when the case had been transferred to another court. The petitioner had been served with summons and his counsel was looking after the case. It is unbelievable that the petitioner as well as the counsel did not care to know on the subsequent date as to what orders had been passed before suit proceedings were to be held ex parte and that too for years together from 25.11.2003.
No perversity, illegality or infirmity could be shown in the findings recorded and conclusions drawn by the courts below in the orders impugned.
The writ petition has no force and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
Dt/-4.10.2010 SNT/