Laldhari Mistri and ors. Vs. Vijay Kumar

civil procedure code, 1908, sections 100 and 100(4) - bihar buildings (lease, rent and eviction) control act, 1982, section 11(1)(c)--eviction suit on bona fide need--dismissed--appeal dismissed--hence second appeal-section 100(4) mandatorily requires existence of substantial question of law in second appeal--no such question involved--dismissed only on ground of inability to prove bona fide need--concurrent findings on fact not re-examined nor re-appreciated in second appeal--second appeal dismissed accordingly. - - the impugned order passed by the trial court as well as the appellate court are perused especially along with the provisions of section 115 of the code pertaining to the powers of revision as well as order ix rule 13 of the code along with the second proviso. 12 of 1987. 4. successfully the revision could be brought against the impugned order in terms of the provisions of section 115 of the code provided the court taking up such revision is satisfied that (a) the court having passed the impugned order has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law; or (b) has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested; of course, they provide for setting aside the ex parte decrees, if the court is satisfied that the summons was not duly served, or that the party was prevented by any sufficient cause from appearing when the suit was called on for hearing. it is also material to note that as per the second proviso of order ix rule 13 of the code, no court shall set aside a decree passed ex parte merely on the ground that there has been an irregularity in the service of summons, if it is satisfied that the defendant had notice of the date of hearing and had sufficient time to appear and answer the plaintiff's claim. 7. in the result, the petition must fail......appellate court are perused especially along with the provisions of section 115 of the code pertaining to the powers of revision as well as order ix rule 13 of the code along with the second proviso.3. the following dates are self eloquent:-date facts 9.6.1987 suit for specific performance of contract to sell, against hira mistri, bearing t.s. no. 14 of 1986 was decreed ex parte 19.12.1987 rest money was deposited by the decree holder. 4.02.1988 sale deed executed by court. 29.12.1969 delivery of possession effected. 6.09.1990 hira mistri died leaving behind jhari, laldhari (petitioner no. 1), sallo, and khokhia devi. upendra sharma (petitioner no. 2) is the son of jhari mistri. 26.2.1993 two vakalatnamas were filed by jhari mistri's lawyer, prem ranjan sinha, 2.3.1993 one for inspection of t.s. no. 14 of 1986 and the other for inspection of execution case no. 12 of 1987. 27.2.1993 both the cases were inspected (annexure-a) 2.3.1993 series of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the opposite party). 7.12.1994 petition was filed by petitioner no. 1 and jhari mistri for withdrawal of money in t.s. no. 14 of 1986. 7.2.1994 prayer refused by the court. 1.3.1994 petitioner no. 1 and jhari filed petition for withdrawal of the amount in execution case no. 12 of 1987.4. successfully the revision could be brought against the impugned order in terms of the provisions of section 115 of the code provided the court taking up such revision is satisfied that (a) the court having passed the impugned order has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law; or (b) has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested; or (c) has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. again, the provisions of order ix, rule 13 of the code are very important. of course, they provide for setting aside the ex parte decrees, if the court is satisfied that the summons was not duly served, or that the party was prevented by any sufficient cause from.....