Manick Enterprises Vs. Haji Sulaiman - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
.....premises is no reason to deny him the benefit of setting aside the exparte order dismissing the miscellaneous application which may be allowed or may not be allowed. when extraneous factors are taken into consideration, then there is improper exercise of jurisdiction and this court must interfere. - code of criminal procedure, 1973 [c.a. no. 2/1974]. section 397: [r.b.naik, j] submission of b report by the police -protest petition - acceptance of b report - challenge to revision against held, if the original complainant appears before the court and filed his protest petition to b report and opts to examine himself and other witnesses in support of his case, the legal recourse that is left to the magistrate is to treat such protest petition as original complaint filed under..........obtained and took possession of the building. in the meanwhile, the petitioner had filed one more miscellaneous application to set aside the order passed in the earlier miscellaneous petition. that has come to be dismissed on the ground, it is no longer maintainable in view of the execution proceedings being completed to execute the order made under section 21 of the karnataka rent control act.3. therefore, the short question which falls for determination in this revision petition is whether that could be a ground for exercising or not exercising discretion vested in the trial court under order 9 rule 13 c.p.c. under order 9 rule 13, the applicant or petitioner is required only to show sufficient cause for his absence at the hearing of the case where and when he was required to be.....

Judgment:
ORDER

Chandrakantaraj Urs, J.

1. This matter coming up for orders on I.A.1, is disposed of finally after hearing the Counsel for the parties.

2. The Revision petitioner suffered an ex parte order of eviction in a proceeding for eviction instituted under the Karnataka Rent Control Act by the respondent. He filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 for setting aside that ex parte decree in a Miscellaneous Petition. That Miscellaneous Petition itself came to be dismissed for non-prosecution subsequently. Thereafter the respondent-landlord executed the order of eviction he had obtained and took possession of the building. In the meanwhile, the petitioner had filed one more Miscellaneous Application to set aside the order passed in the earlier Miscellaneous Petition. That has come to be dismissed on the ground, it is no longer maintainable in view of the execution proceedings being completed to execute the order made under Section 21 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act.

3. Therefore, the short question which falls for determination in this Revision Petition is whether that could be a ground for exercising or not exercising discretion vested in the trial Court under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. Under Order 9 Rule 13, the applicant or petitioner is required only to show sufficient cause for his absence at the hearing of the case where and when he was required to be present. The Court has to look at that and no other factor in making up its mind while passing an order. That he has been evicted from the premises is no reason to deny him the benefit of setting aside the ex parte order dismissing the Miscellaneous Application which may be allowed or may not be allowed. When extraneous factors are taken into consideration, then there is improper exercise of jurisdiction and this Court must interfere. Therefore, the order impugned In this Revision Petition is set aside and the Court-below is directed to dispose of the application under Order 9 Rule 13 in accordance with law without reference to what has happened to the ex parte decree of eviction which has since been executed.