1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION No. 1402 OF 2001
Shri Bhimrao Pundalik Bhalerao,
Age 47 years, Occu. Service,
Head Post Office, Mail Overcier,
Bhusawal, Tq. Bhusawal,
Dist. Jalgaon. ...APPLICANT
ig VERSUS
The United Western Bank Ltd.,
Body Corporate, ( Now IDBI Bank)
Branch Chopada, Tq. Chopada,
Dist. Jalgaon. ..RESPONDENT
...
...
Mr.B.A. Agrawal, Advocate h/f Adv. R.R. Mantri,
Advocate for applicant
Mr.S.V. Advant, Advocate for respondent
CORAM :- S.S. SHINDE, J.
JUDGEMENT RESERVED ON : 5th October, 2010
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON : 13th October, 2010
JUDGMENT:
Rule, Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard
finally with the consent of parties.
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 16:32:13 :::
2
2. The Civil Revision application takes
exception to the order dated 3rd December, 2001 by
Civil Judge Senior Division, Amalner, in Misc.
Application No. 3 of 1999.
3. The Civil Revision applicant herein fled
Misc. Application No. 3 of 1999 before Civil Judge
Senior Division, Amalner, under Order 9Rule 13 of the
Civil Procedure ig Code. The respondent herein filed
Civil Suit NO. 2 of 1997 against the applicant for
recovery of Rs. 30,983/- (Rs. Thirty thousand nine
hundred eight three). The applicant herein appeared in
the suit but could not file Written Statement. When
the case was fixed for final hearing, applicant’s
Counsel was absent, as he has to appear before the
Court of Civil Judge Junior Division, Chopada. It is
further case of the applicant that the letter issued
by his Advocate, could not received by him in due
course, because the applicant was performing his duty
at some other village. As a result, the suit was
decided exparte on 18th December, 1998. As the
applicant could not appeared in Special Civil Suit No.
2 of 1997, the suit was decided exparte. Therefore,
Misc. Application was filed by the applicant herein
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 16:32:13 :::
3
for setting aside the exparte decree.
4. The respondent herein who is original
opponent had no objection to restore the Special
Civil Suit No. 2 of 1997.
5. The learned Judge has recorded the evidence
of the applicant. In support of his case, applicant
examined himself,
ig his evidence was recorded below
(Exh. 22). In the said statement he stated that he had
not filed any Written Statement in the suit. The suit
was fixed for final hearing, he was residing at
Chopada. The Counsel appearing on behalf of applicant
told him that he will informed the applicant, whenever
required. The applicant was transferred to Bhusawal,
and therefore, he could not appear before the court.
Hence, the suit was decided against him exparte on 18th
December, 1999. Therefore, he prayed that suit may be
restored to its original file.
6. The learned Judge after hearing the
applicant and original opponent rejected the
application for setting aside exparte decree. Hence,
this Civil Revision Application.
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 16:32:13 :::
4
7. The learned Counsel for the applicant
submitted that inspite of express consent given by the
respondent to set aside the exparte decree, Trial
Court exceeded its jurisdiction vested in its by
refusing to setting aside the exparte decree. It is
further submitted that Trial Court acted illegally and
with material irregularity in exercise of its
jurisdiction, in that the provisions of Order VI Rule
12(2) (a) had no bearing in facts of the present case.
The findings are capricious and arbitrary and
perverse. If the impugned order allowed to stand,
could occasioned grave mis-carriage of justice and
would cause undue hardship to the applicant. The
learned Counsel also invited my attention to the
grounds taken in the application, and also other
documents placed on record.
8. The learned Counsel appearing for respondent,
vehemently opposed the application and submitted that
in view of Order 43 Rule 1 (d) of Civil Procedure
Code, the present Civil Revision Application is not
maintainable.
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 16:32:13 :::
5
9. I have carefully perused the Civil Revision
Application, along with its annexures, and also the
provisions of the Civil Procedure Code. It is not in
dispute that the application filed by the applicant
under Order IX Rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Code.
The Trial Court in para NO. 5 has considered the
application of the applicant and taking recourse to
order VI Rule 14(a) (2) of the Civil Procedure Code
held that it was the duty of the applicant to file
fresh memo of address, as it required under Order VI
Rule 14(a) (2) of the Civil Procedure Code. Therefore,
in absence of such steps, it is not possible to
entertain application and further observed that there
is mistake on the part of the applicant, because of
which he could not appeared before the Court and which
is not reasonable excuse to condone such a conduct.
10. Without entering into the aspect of
maintainability of Civil Revision Application, I
propose to dispose of the application on its merits
itself. Since the Rule is issued on the Civil Revision
Application, by this Court in 2001, now telling the
applicant to file some other proceedings, after 10
years would cause great hardship to the applicant.
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 16:32:13 :::
6
That apart the assignment of hearing the Civil
Revision Application and also Appeal From Order is
with this Court, and therefore, it is desirable to
decide the matter on its own merits.
“[Rule 14A. Address for Service of notice :-
(1) Every pleading, when filed by a party,
shall be accompanied by a statement in the
prescribed form, signed as provided in rule
14, regarding the address of the pary.
(2) such address may, from time to time, be
changed by lodging in Court a form duly
filled up and stating a new address of the
party and accompanied by a verified
petition.”
11. The perusal of Sub Rule 2 of Rule 14(a)
would make it clear that every pleadings, when filed
by a party, shall be accompanied by a statement in the
prescribed form, signed as provided in Rule 14,
regarding address of the party. Sub Rule (2) further
provided that such address may, from time to time, be
changed by lodging in Court a from duly filled up and
stating the new address of the party and accompanied
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 16:32:13 :::
7
by a verified petition. The Sub Rule (3) provides that
address furnished in the statement made under sub-rule
(1) shall be called as “registered address” of the
party, and shall, until duly changed as aforesaid, be
deemed to be the address of the party for the purpose
of service of all processes in the suit, and shall
hold good as aforesaid, for a period of two years
after the final determination of the cause or matter.
A careful reading of Rule 14(a) would clearly
spell out that it is for the party to furnish the new
address if any by lodging in Court a form duly filled
up and stating therein new address of the party.
12. Therefore, the provisions are very clear and
there is no any scope to infer that the applicant was
not obliged to give his changed address to the Court,
either himself or though his pleader, in the manner
stated in sub rule 2 of Rule 14(a) of Order VI.
Therefore, the Trial Court has rightly addressed the
issue and concluded that it was for the applicant to
furnish such address. Therefore, there is no substance
in the Civil Revision Application. That apart the
decree passed by the Court below was money decree and
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 16:32:13 :::
8
interference in such decree, unless very strong case
is made out would be frustrating the claim of the
opponents.
13. Therefore, taking over all view of the matter
and taking into consideration scope of the revision,
no case is made out for interference. Hence, Civil
Revision Application stands dismissed. Rule
discharged.
Original record if any be sent back to the
concerned Court.
In view of the dismissal of the Civil
Revision Application, Civil Application, if any stands
disposed of accordingly.
[S.S. SHINDE, J]
SDM*1402.10CRA
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 16:32:13 :::