JUDGMENT
P.K. Deb, J.
1. None appears for the Opposite Party, although notice had been properly served on him.
2. The petitloer is the defendant in Title (Eviction) Suit No. 233/1988. The Opposite Party being landlord filed the abovementioned suit against the petitioner for eviction under the B.B.C. Act, but the suit was decreed ex-parte in absence of the petitioner-defendant, and the said decree was also executed by evicting the petitioner from the suit premises. The petitioner filed a petition under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. for setting aside the ex-parte decree which was registered as Misc. case and ultimately restoration petition was allowed and the ex-parte decree was set aside. When the suit has again been brought to file, the petitioner filed a petition under Section 144 CPC being Misc. Case No. 5/91 before the Munsif, Jamshedpur who passed the ex-parte decree for restitution of possession but the learned Munsif without deciding the matter in issue ordered that the restitution matter would be taken up after the original suit is disposed of.
3. It should be mentioned here that by that time the Eviction Suit pending before the Munsif was transferred to the court of Sub Judge-3, Jamshedpur. Against the order passed on 27.5.1992, the petitioer came up before this Court in Misc. Appeal, which was ultimately withdrawn for filing appeal before the appropriate court, as per Annexure-2. Then appeal was preferred before the District Judge being Misc. Appeal No. 3/98. As the Misc. Appeal was not being disposed of the petitioner came up before this Court in Civil Revision No 146/93 (R), and by order dated 6.10.1993 (Annexure-3), direction was given to expedite the hearing of the Misc. Appeal and it was further ordered that after the disposal of Misc. Appeal, the suit should be heard within three weeks next thereafter.
4. It appears that after the said order of the High Court was passed, the Misc.. Appeal No. 3/93 was disposed of by order dated 14.2.1994. In that appeal, the learned District Judge, Jamshedpur recorded dismissal on the ground that the Munsif had not disposed of the petition for restitution under Section 144 C.P.C. rather kept it in abeyance till the dismissal of the Eviction Suit.
5. In technical sense the dismissal order might be sounding well but the fact remains that after the ex-parte decree was set aside, the defendant-petitioner is entitled to get restitution of possession and such restitution of possession can in no case be kept in abeyance till the disposal of the Eviction Suit. Otherwise the whole purpose under Section 144 C.P.C. would be frustrated.
6. The landlord in the restitution process seems to be very not interested and it appears from the order passed in the courts below that a tenant has already been inducted in the premises after getting possession in execution of the ex-parte decree and perhaps for that reason even after receipt of notice the landlord-opposite party has not appeared before this Court also.
7. Be it what it may, the fact remains that after the setting aside of the ex-parte decree, the defendant-petitioner is entitled for restitution of possession under law as per provisions of Section 144 C.P.C. The order of the Munsif, keeping the same in abeyance is bad in the eye of law.
8. In the result, this revision petition is allowed and the Munsif, Jamshedpur is directed to dispose of Misc. Case No. 5/91 on merit without loosing time on receipt of a copy of this Order. The Misc. petition should be disposed of within three weeks after receipt of the Order from this Court and after giving an opportunity of hearing to both the parties,
9. This revision petition is accordingly allowed.
10. No order as to costs.