1970 PLP 826 (PLC)

MD. NURUL ISLAM KHAN (CHAIR.MAN).‑This is an application under Order IX, rule 13,C. P. C. for setting aside the ex parte order, dated 10‑i‑70 passed in Complaint Case No. 170 of 1969 and for revival of that case for re‑hearing. The case of the petitioner second‑party is that the Deputy Manager, Operations of the E. P. WAPDA, Tejgaon Industrial Area; Dacca, went abroad at the tithe of the hearing of the case. An official letter was written to the Court praying for '3 months' time. The Department did not get any answer to that letter. The Department had no knowledge about the procedure of the Court; and as such the official concerned was under the impres sion that the next date of the case had not been fixed and had not got the summons again. So, they could not turn up and the case was heard ex parte and decision was given in the case. When the first party O. P. filed a joining report to the office of the second party on 10‑2‑70 the office became alert and hence filed this petition for review. The first party O. P. objected to this saying that the second party‑petitioner was aware of the date and ignorance of law no excuse for them. The petitioner O. P. had a good case. He was kept under suspension for a long period and later his services were illegally terminated. To save their skin the second party‑petitioner has now come up with a false excuse. The peti tion should be rejected with costs. The only excuse given by the petitioner is that the second party No. 1 was away to Russia and that their office sent an official letter to this Court seeking three months' time. This is a Court, proceeding and it cannot be confined to any official correspondence between the Court and any single party. The second party received the notice of this Court and thereafter they were to take step in this Court to the knowledge of the O. P. The plea that the petitioner had no knowledge of the law and the Court procedure is most untenable and it gives no ground for revival of the case by setting aside the ex parte decree. So, this excuse has to be thrown overboard and rejected outright. Regarding the merit of the case we have nothing to do in the present case since `we have found that the petitioner had wilfully remained absent from the Court on lordly plea that if he would not go to the Court, the Court would go to him. This is a false hope actuated by the self‑indulgent spirit of the second party petitioner. In the notice the second party was told to appear in Court with whatever proofs they had in, support of their case. So, there is hardly any room for excuse. Hence, this petition for revival has no leg to stand upon. It is accordingly ordered ~ that the Miscellaneous Case be dismissed on contest. Members have also expressed their opinion that the Miscella neous Case should be dismissed.