M. Abdul Salam and Others vs Lourdusami Chettiar

Ganpatia Pillai, J.—These two petitions arise out of a common order passed by the Principal District Munsif of Salem in two petitions under

O. 21, Rr. 104 and 105 and Sec. 151 of the Civil Procedure Code. These two petitions before the lower court were to restore R. E,. A. No.

1326 of 1956 and R. E. A. No. 648 of 1956 which were dismissed on 16-4-1958 for non-prosecution. The petitioners before me who were the

decree-holders before the District Munsif had obtained an order of eviction of the respondent from a building and they applied to the District

Munsif for execution of that order for obtaining delivery of possession. These two petitions, one for recognising the assignment and the other for an

order of delivery, came up before the District Munsif on a particular date. On that date the counsel for the decree-holder was not present. A

request for adjournment till the counsel appeared was refused. The party was unable to go on with the proceeding and consequently, the District

Munsif made the order dismissing the E. Ps. for non-prosecution.

The order which is now sought to be attacked by Mr. Ramamurthi, counsel for the petitioners, is an order restoring the two E. Ps. to file under

Rule 105 of order 21 of the C.P.C. It is true the learned District Munsif seems to have assumed that he had power of restoration of these

execution proceedings, apart from any specific provision in the Code. As early as 1929 a Full Bench of this court in Alagasundaram v. Pichuvier,

AIB 1929 Mad 757 had ruled that courts governed by the CPC had no inherent power to set aside orders in any case where other remedy

existed. The dismissal in that case was of an application under Order 21, Rules 97 and 100. To remedy this state of affairs, Rules 104 and 105

were inserted by this court in Order XXI in 1945. Obviously the learned District Munsif was unaware of this correct legal position when he said

that he had no (sic) inherent powers to restore the E. Ps. to file. His power is solely derived from Rules 104 and 105 of Order XXI.

Mr. Ramamurthi counsel for the petitioners contended that the dismissal for non-prosecution would not be dismissal for default within the

meaning of Rule 104. I am sure what constitutes ex parte disposal of a suit will equally apply to an ex parte order of dismissal of an E. P. This

court has consistently held that the mere physical presence of a party when an ex parte decree is passed in a suit would not be appearance of the p

before court, sufficient to constitute the disposal one made in the presence of the party. The principle is that where a party is represented by a

counsel and the counsel is not present and the party alone is present and the party asks for an adjournment to enable him to procure the presence

of the counsel, an adjudication made in such circumstances in the presence of the party would still be an ex parte adjudication. despite the physical

presence of the party. This principle must equally apply to execution proceedings. The dismissal of the E. Ps. for non-prosecution in this case must

really therefore be construed as dismissal for default. in which case. Rule 104 will be attracted, and the District Munsif will have jurisdiction to

restore these E. Ps. to file. The order restoring the E. PS. is correct and the civil revision petitions are dismissed with costs in one civil revision,

petition.

Revision Petitions dismissed.