AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Petitioner has preferred this revision petition under Section 115 CPC to assail order dated 13.03.2018 passed by Additional District Judge No.2, Sri
Ganganagar (for short, ‘learned Court below’), whereby learned Court below has accepted application of the first respondent under Order 9
Rule 13 read with 151 CPC to set aside judgment dated 29.11.1997 passed in Case No.9/97.
The facts, in brief, are that petitioner laid an application before learned Court below under Section 14(2) of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (for short, ‘Act
of 1940’) for making arbitral award dated 19.10.1995 as rule of the Court. The learned Court below issued notices to the respondents, however,
notices were not served on respondent No.1, and therefore, while resorting to Order 5 Rule 20 CPC, Court has ordered for substituted service on first
respondent by publishing notices in daily newspaper. It so happened that despite publication of notice in daily newspaper, none appeared on behalf
of first respondent, and therefore, learned Court below proceeded to decide application of the petitioner under Section 14(2) of the Act of 1940 ex-
parte, and, eventually by its verdict dated 29.11.1997, made it rule of the Court.
Feeling aggrieved by the ex-parte decision dated 29.11.1997, first respondent submitted an application under Order 9 Rule 13 read with Section 151
CPC before learned Court below for setting aside the same. Learned Court below, upon examining the grounds set out in the application, has found
that the notice, which was published in the newspaper, has not shown correct address of the first respondent. The Court has also taken note of a
very vital fact that even the arbitral award was passed ex-parte wherein different address of the first respondent was shown. The learned Court
below, while granting indulgence to the first respondent, has also placed reliance on a decision of Supreme Court in Sunil Poddar Vs. Union Bank of
India (AIR 2008 SC 1006), and finally accepted application of the first respondent so as to set aside decision dated 29.11.1997.
I have heard authorized representative of the petitioner & perused the impugned order.
Upon examining the impugned order thoroughly, in the backdrop of provisions of Order 9 Rule 13 CPC, in my opinion, learned Court below has not
committed any illegality or material irregularity in exercise of its jurisdiction in setting aside the exparte decision. Learned Court below has made
sincere endeavour for doing substantial justice in the matter, and therefore, it would be imprudent to say that the same has occasioned miscarriage of
justice.
It is trite that revisional jurisdiction of this Court is very much limited and not akin to appellate jurisdiction. As there is no infirmity in the impugned
order so as to conclude that learned Court below has overstepped its jurisdiction or exercised the same with illegality or material irregularity, I am not
inclined to interfere with the impugned order.
Resultantly, revision petition fails and the same is hereby rejected summarily.