AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M.S. Liberhan, J. (Oral)
The solitary question raised in this revision petition is whether an application for setting aside the exparte decree dismissed in default can be sought to be restored by another application. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal found that no application for restoration of the application dismissed in default is maintainable.
The reasoning adopted by the Tribunal cannot be sustained. It has been specifically observed in a Division Bench judgment reported in Bhajan Singh v. Ganeshi Devi, AIR 1978 P&H 257 to the effect that an application under Order 9 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure is competent if it seeks restoration of an earlier application seeking restoration of the suit in the event that a suit and the said previous application have both been dismissed in default. The revision has to be allowed in view of the categorical law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court with which respectfully, I am in agreement.
The facts and circumstances of this case are squarely covered. The application for restoration of an application for setting aside the exparte order is maintainable.
In view of this, I accept the revision petition & set aside the order dated 1.2.1989. The application under Order 9 Rule 13, C.P.C., dismissed in default is restored on payment of Rs. 300/ as costs as sufficient cause has been shown with respect to the absence of the lawyer as well as the client on the date when the application under Order 9 Rule 13, C.P.C. was fixed for hearing. The trial Court is directed to decide the application for setting aside the exparte decree after hearing the parties on merits in accordance with law. The parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on 12.9.1989.
Revision allowed.