JUDGMENT
V.V. Kamat, J.
1. Both the Courts have non-suited the petitioner completely eventhough he stated on oath that he was bed-ridden, unable to walk and, therefore, unable to participate in the litigation enunciated against him by his landlord for his eviction. He also supported his contention by examining his family doctor. Examination of a family doctor in a litigation is itself a rare occasion but this was not found as a rare occasion by the two Courts below. The petitioner examined himself and stated on oath that he was unable to attend the Court on the ground of illness, which put him down on his bed. He examined his medical practitioner who has rightly deposed on the basis of his medical papers that he treated him for a period of two months. The Trial Court disbelieved the petitioner and the evidence of the medical officer by reasoning which can not be considered on any standard of appreciation of evidence. The learned Trial Judge held that the doctor has supported the petitioner only for half of the period. The result was that the application of the petitioner (Exh. 1) for setting aside ex-parte decree in Reg. C.S. 69/90 was dismissed by the order dated 8.7.91, observing that the petitioner has not shown sufficient cause for setting aside ex-parte decree.
2. It would have been all right, had this been the approach of the learned Trial Judge but the Appellate Court did not see any other view on facts.
3. Thus in this revision application peevish views are brought before me. It is more than well know that the law of sufficient cause as well as condonation of delay has undergone a radical change. No party has any interest in suffering a decree and that too of eviction of the premises in his possession and unless there is absolute cause of negligence, the Courts do not deviate from the basic approach that the law of procedure regulates proceedings before the court with the ultimate object of seeing the decision of contest. What is regulated is the movement of the parties in this context. The Courts have never regarded the law of procedure subservient to the ultimate justice to be administered to the parties before it.
4. The petitioner in this situation could not have and can not be expected to have done anything better. He stated on oath that he was not only ill but he was unable to walk. Normally in such cases, the application is accompanied by a medical certificate and it is rare that the doctor himself steps into the witness box. The Courts always have regard to the medical officer who are examined in the Court as witnesses. This is not done by both the Courts. Both the Courts have not discarded the evidence of these witnesses but have not accepted their evidence because the medical officer does not support the petitioner for the full length of his illness. Situations are not rare and in this country where the medical awareness is in its premitive condition. In my judgment, it would be failure of exercise of jurisdiction to approach these aspects in this manner.
5. The facts on record show that the petitioner has been a tenant of the premises at village Mana for the last 30 years, when nothing by way of litigation has taken place. After a period of 30 years, a regular civil suit for possession, being Reg. C.S. No. 69/90 is filed. The record shows that from the date of the filing of the suit upto July, 31, 1990, the petitioner could not remain present due to the factors stated above. The Courts proceeded against him and on getting the knowledge, an application under Order 9, Rule 13 C.P.C. was filed for setting aside the ex-parte decree vide Misc. Judicial Case No. 19/92. The facts tear in the face that the petitioner is facing eviction after a period of 30 years of his occupation of the disputed premises. Curiously enough, both the Courts have lost sight of this fact that the tenant is in possession for the last 30 years.
6. If this ex-parte decree is allowed to be executed, this would cause irreparable loss and injury to the petitioner because he would lose for all times, the shelter of 30 years on his head.
7. In these situations, after hearing both the counsel for the parties, I took up this revision application on the basis of grant of rule. For the reasons indicated above, rule is made absolute and as a result, the impugned order dated 8.7.91 of the learned Civil Judge, Jr. Dn., Murtizapur refusing to set aside the ex-parte decree in Reg. C.S. No. 69/90 as confirmed by the impugned order dated 18.6.93 of the learned Additional District Judge, Akola in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 80/91 gets quashed and set aside. It is ordered that the ex-parte decree dated 31.7.90 gets quashed and set aside and the learned Trial Judge shall proceed to law and decide the same. In the circumstances, the petitioner is directed to pay the costs of the respondent of all the courts below.