Judgment:
L. Mohapatra, J.
1. The application of the petitioner for setting aside the ex parte decree having been rejected and the same having been confirmed in appeal, this revision has been filed.
2. The opposite party had filed the suit - M.S. No. 42 of 1996 against the petitioner in the court of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhanjanagar, for realisation of Rs. 14,378.75 with pendentelite and future interest. The petitioner who is an Advocate did not file his written statement after some adjournments, as a result of which he was set ex parte on 2.9.1998 on 3.9.1998 the suit was taken up for ex parte hearing and the ex parte decree was passed on 10.9.1998. After ex parte decree was passed, the petitioner filed an application under Order 9, Rule 13, C.PC. for setting aside the same. In the application the petitioner stated that his wife was suffering seriously since 1.9.1998 and since he was busy rendering medical assistance to his wife, being the sole male member of the family, he could not file the written statement, resulting in ex-parte decree. The wife of the petitioner developed various complications and was under treatment till 6.3.1999 and during her ailment it was practically impossible for the petitioner to attend to even court work. After his wife recovered from ailment, the petitioner came to know bout the ex parte decree and immediately filed and application for setting aside the same on 8.3.1999. Along with the application for setting aside the ex parte decree, a petition was also filed for condonation of delay in filing the aforesaid application.
3. The learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) disbelieved the statement of the petitioner that he was not in a position to attend to the court work since on some occasions the petitioner had appeared before the learned S.D.J.M., Bhananagar, as well as in the court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division) and rejected the prayer for setting aside the ex parte decree.The appeal filed by the petitioner was also dismissed on the very same ground.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no dispute about illness of the wife of the petitioner and there is also no dispute that the petitioner was the only adult male member who could look after his wife. Merely because the petitioner had to attend to some courts during the period of ailment of his wife cannot be a ground to disbelieve the entire statement of the petitioner that he could not file the written statement in time due to illness of his wife.
On the otherhand, learned counsel appearing for the Bank submitted that both the courts having found the petitioner negligent in filing written statement in time, this Court should not disturb the concurrent findings of fact in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction. He further argued that since the petitioner had in fact attended the court of the S.D.J.M., Bhanjanagar, during the period on some occasions, it cannot be said that the petitioner was not at all in the position to attend the court work.
5. From the pleadings of the parties and the orders passed by both the courts below it is very clear that there is no dispute with regard to claim of the petitioner so for as it relates to ailment of his wife. There is also no dispute that during the period of ailment the petitioner could attend the court of the S.D.J.M., Bhanjanagar, as well as the court of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhanjanagar, only when urgency arose. Therefore, it is clear that the petitioner was not regularly attending the court due to ailment of his wife and only the case of urgency he was coming to court. Both the courts below should have considered this aspect of the matter and should not have disbelieved the plea of the petitioner just because the attended same courts on same occasions during the said period.
6. So far as exercise of jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure in concerned, reference may be made to a decision of the Apex Court reported in AIR 1987 SC 1353 : Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantanagand Anr. v. Katiji and Ors. The Apex Court in the aforesaid case has categorically held that where substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred, for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay. Following the aforesaid decision, I am of the view that such technical questions will not stand in the way of the court in doing substantial justice.
7. I, therefore, set aside the impugned orders passed by both the courts below the allow the revision, subject for payment of cost of Rs. 500/- (Rupees five hundred) to be deposited in the trial court. If the written statement has been filed in the meantime, the same maybe accepted or, in the alternative, the petitioner shall be granted fifteen days' time to file written statement. The suit being of the year 1996, the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) shall dispose of the same within six months from the date of communication of this order.
8. Revision allowed.