ORDER
1. This is a revision by LRs. 3 and 6 against the order dated 8-2-1985 passed by the Civil Judge, Kolar, in Misc. Appeal No. 40 of 1982 affirming the order dated 16-91982 passed by the Principal Munsiff, Kolar, in Misc. No. 40 of 1919 dismissing the same.
2. Sabulal the petitioner in Misc. No. 40/79 was the defendant in O.S.No. 160/79. According to him he received the summons in 0. S. No. 160/79 and that he did not know reading and writing English and hence he handed over the summons to his son to let him know what it was. According to him his son was unable to say what it was. According to him, his son stated that he would show it to the lawyer and so saying took it away. In the meanwhile his son went to Bangalore for some work with the said summons. He did not return home well in time. He returned only on27-6-1979 at night. He questioned him on that very night what it was. According to him, his son told him that he had misplaced it. He and his son searched for it and traced it. The next day he took, it to the lawyer and came to know that the hearing date was 15-6-1979 and that there was an ex parte decree passed on 21-61979. His non-appearance was due to bona fide reasons and he could not appear on the date of hearing for sufficient grounds. Hence he prayed that the ex parte decree may be set aside.
3. It was resisted by the other side.
4. T he trial court dismissed the petition, Sabulal being dissatisfied with that order, approached the Civil Judge with M.A. No. 40 of 1982. During the pendency of the appeal he died and his L.Rs. were brought on record. The appeal was also dismissed. Hence the revision by the L.Rs. of the deceased Sabulal.
5. The evidence of Sabulal is that he received the summons in O.S. No. 160/79. According to him, he did riot know how to re4d and write English at all and on account of this, he handed over the summons to his son to find out what it was. He stated that his son told him that he would show it to the lawyer and then tell him what it was. He stated that his son went to Bangalore with the summons and returned only on 27-6-1979 at night. When questioned, his son told him that he had misplaced the summons. They searched for it and found it and the very next day he and his son went to the lawyer and found that it was the suit summons and the hearing date was 15-6-1979 and that the suit had been decreed ex parte on 21-6-1979. Afterall, Sabulal was sufficiently an old man and by profession he was a driver. Therefore his evidence that he did not know English and thus did not come to know the contents of the summons appears to be correct. Naturally his version that he asked his son to find out what the contents of the summons were merits to be accepted. The system of sending summons in English is highly deprecable because the majority of the people do not know English at all. The summons should be issued as far as possible, in the local language. That the summons was issued in English, is not disputed by the other side. Therefore the very act of issuing the summons in English, makes the story of Sabulal highly acceptable that he did not know the contents of the summons therefore the trial Court made a mess of the whole matter and unnecessarily attributed knowledge to the defendant Sabulal. There is not much of delay in the filing of the miscellaneous application under 0. 9, R. 13, C.P.C. Therefore, under these circum stances, the trial court as well as the appellate court committed an error in disbelieving the story of Sabulal for no reasons. Therefore, under these circumstances, the order passed by the trial court dismissing the Miscellaneous Case and the order passed by the lower appellate court confirming it, are set aside.
6. The judgment of the learned Munsiff in O.S. No. 160/79 is written in the order sheet itself. The certified copy of the order sheet ‘ dated 21-6-1979 is now produced before me. It reads as: –
“Plaintiff by Sri A. B.,
Defendant by ex parte.
Petitioner’s evidence.
P. W. I examined. Exhibits P1 to P5 marked. Suit claim is proved. Suit decreed as prayed for granting a month’s time for the defendant to execute the sale deed and. on failure the plaintiff is entitled to get the sale deed executed by this court.”
Such ex parte judgments have been condemned by this Court on more than one occasion. The judgment as laid down by the Civil Procedure Code though it might be an ex parte judgment, must contain a precis of the plaint and the points that arose for determination and it should also record the findings. It should also contain succinctly the summary of the discussion of the evidence and the effect of the document in the suit.’ Nothing of the sort has been done in this case. The Court should bear in mind that a heavy burden lies on the Court especially in matters where the defendants are ex parte. The burden becomes much more onerous in ex parte matters. The Court cannot blindly decree the suit on the ground that the defendants are ex parte. In ex parte suits, it cannot resort to the present method of writing the judgment which has been extracted above. Therefore the very nature of the judgment passed in this case demands of this Court to exercise its revisional jurisdiction under S. 115, C.P. C. Therefore, even on this basis’ the ex parte judgment and decree need to be set aside.
7. In the result, the order passed by the trial court and the order passed by the lower appellate court are set aside. The revision is allowed. The suit – O.S. No. 160/79 – is restored to file. The revision petitioner’s counsel is directed to keep his client or his local advocate present in the trial court on 27-2-1987. The trial court may issue court notice to the other side or the counsel for him in the trial court and may proceed with the matter. The trial court should give an opportunity to the L.Rs. to file their written statement. The trial court should give an opportunity to both the parties to lead the necessary evidence.
8. No costs in this revision.
9. Revision allowed.