JUDGMENT
K.S. Gupta, J.
(1) This order will govern the disposal of IAs No. 2469/94, 2491/94, 2468/94 & 8262/94.
(2) Ia 2469/94 was filed by Brij Mohan Jain, intervener under Section 151, Code of Civil Procedure alleging that he had filed Ia 24/89 sometime in December, 1988. After filing the reply to Ia 24/89 by the plaintiff, the Court directed both the intervener/applicant and the plaintiff to file their respective affidavits by way of evidence which were filed. Aforesaid Ia on 14th May, 1993 was adjourned to 10th August, 1993 for arguments. However, on 10th August, 1993, the case was simply renotified for 3.11.1993 by the Court Master. When the case was not found listed on 3.11.1993, on enquiry from the Dealing Assistant in the Registry, it was revealed that the case was postponed to 1.3.1994. However, on 1.3.1994 only S. No. 453/67 was shown in the list. It is further alleged that the Counsel for the applicant immediately on the morning of 1.3.1994 saw the Court file and then he came to know that the aforesaid Ia was listed for 4.11.1993 and as none put in appearance on behalf of the applicant, the same was dismissed in default. Applicant and his Counsel always remained under the impression that the aforesaid Ia was adjourned to 1.3.1994 for arguments. It is also alleged that even on 4.11.1993, the case was not shown in the regular list. It might have been shown in the supplementary list which was not circulated to the Counsel for the applicant. There was thus sufficient cause for non-appearance of the applicant and his Counsel on 4.11.1993. It was prayed that the order dated 4.11.1993 may be recalled and Ia 24/89 be listed for arguments.
(3) Ia 2470/94 was filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condensation of delay in filing aforesaid Ia No. 2469/94.
(4) Yet another Ia 2491/94 was filed by Jai Lal Jain on the allegations identical to that taken in Ia 2469/94 for restoration of Ia 25/89 which too was dismissed in default of appearance on 4.11.1993.
(5) Ia No. 2468/94 was filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condensation of delay in filing above Ia No. 2491/94.
(6) In the replies filed to the aforesaid IAs, plea taken by the plaintiff is that the case was shown in the supplementary list on 4.11.1993 also bearing the name of the Counsel for the applicant and as none appeared on their behalf, IAs 24 & 25/89 were dismissed in default of appearance. It is stated that supplementary list was duly circulated to the applicant’s Counsel.
(7) I have the learned Counsel for the parties.
(8) It is admitted case of the parties that IAs 24/89 & 25/89 were dismissed in default of appearance on 4.11.1993 and that both the IAs were not listed in the regular list of that date. Plaintiff alleges that the IAs were shown in the supplementary list bearing the name of the Counsel for the applicants. In IAs 2469/94 & 2491/94 which are supported by the affidavits, it is denied that any supplementary list was circulated to the applicant’s Counsel on 4.11.1993. Therefore, there seems to be no reason to disbelieve the applicants’ Counsel that supplementary list of 4.11.1993 was not circulated to them. Absence of the applicant’s Counsel on the aforesaid date, obviously, was because of non-circulation of the supplementary list to them. That being so, applicants have made out sufficient cause not only for condensation of delay in question but also for restoration of IAs 24/89 & 25/89.
(9) Order dated 4.1.1993 is, therefore, recalled and IAs 24/89 & 25/89 are restored to their original number. IAs 2469/94, 2491/94, 2468/94 & 2470/94 are disposed of accordingly.
(10) Ia No. 8262/94 has been jointly filed by the plaintiff and defendants 1 & 3 under Section 151, Code of Civil Procedure for permitting the Receiver to change the tenancies with their consent.
(11) I have heard the parties’ Counsel.
(12) Since the plaintiff and contesting defendants 1 & 3 agree that the Receiver be permitted to change tenancies at higher rents with their consent, I see absolutely no reason not to clothe the Receiver with the power to change tenancies of the Huf properties in question at higher rents with the consent of the plaintiff and the consisting defendants 1 & 3. Receiver is, accordingly, allowed to change the tenancies at higher rents with the consent of the plaintiff and contesting defendants 1 and 3. However, change in tenancy would be subject to the approval of this Court. Ia is disposed of accordingly.