Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: O.XLI,r.21,O.XLVII,r.1,2,S.151,115

Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: O.XLI,r.21,O.XLVII,r.1,2,S.151,115

Law: Limitation Act, 1908

Section: 5

Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-------O. XLI, R.21 & S. 115---Pre-emption suit---Ex parte decision, setting aside of---Sufficient reasons---Failure of pre-emptor, a Government employee to get leave on the date fixed---Strike of lawyers---Non-filing of counter affidavit---Suit for possession through pre-emption was decreed in favour of pre-emptors by Trial Court---On the date fixed for hearing of appeal before lower Appellate Court, pre-emptors and their counsel failed to appear, resultantly appeal was decided in favour of vendee---Pre-emptors filed application under O.XLI, R.21 C.P.C. on the ground that one of them being government employee could not manage leave of his superiors to attend the Court and the other was sick, whereas their counsel did not appear because of strike / boycott---Application of pre-emptors was supported by affidavit and no counter affidavit was filed by vendee---Appellate Court accepted the application and set aside ex parte decree---Validity---Pre-emptors in whose absence appeal was decided ex parte had to explain their non-service or to. give sufficient reasons which prevented them from appearing when appeal was called on for hearing---Pre-emptors, in their application, had duly explained reasons, which prevented them from appearing before lower Appellate Court and those on account of which their counsel did not appear on their behalf---Such reasons were a sufficient cause as required by O.XLI, R.21 C.P.C.---Application of pre-emptors was supported by a detailed affidavit, specifically swearing regarding absence of each of them including their counsel but vendee while replying that application did not file any counter affidavit---In absence of any counter affidavit, facts sworn on affidavit by pre-emptors had to be accepted---Although order passed by lower Appellate Court was not well worded and did not encompass entire controversy, yet net result given through it was just/fair, which could not be termed arbitrary/fanciful on the basis of any canon of law known for administration of justice---Lower Appellate Court did not commit any illegality/irregularity in terms of S.115 C.P.C.---High Court in exercise of revisional…

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492