BEBO DEVI & ANR Vs. MAMTA GOLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Cm No. 38053/2018 (for restoration)

(2.) The case of the respondent/plaintiff was that she purchased the suit property by means of a registered Sale Deed dated 18.11998 from its owner. It was pleaded in the plaint that appellants no. 1 and 2/defendants no. 1 and 2 requested the respondent/plaintiff to allow them to stay in the ground floor of the suit property and they were allowed to do so as licensees without rent. Since in spite of requests the appellants no. 1 and 2/defendants no. 1 and 2 failed to vacate the suit property, therefore, the license of the appellants no. 1 and 2/defendants no. 1 and 2 was terminated by the Legal Notice dated 23.09.2011, and thereafter the subject suit was filed for possession and mesne profits.

(3.) It is noted that appellants no. 1 and 2/defendants no. 1 and 2 did not appear in the suit and were proceeded ex parte and respondent/plaintiff led ex parte evidence and an ex parte decree dated 24.01.2013 was passed in favour of the respondent/plaintiff. However, this ex parte decree on an application filed by the appellants no. 1 and 2/defendants no. 1 and 2 on an application made under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC was set aside on 04.08.2014. appellants no. 1 and 2/defendants no. 1 and 2 thereafter filed the written statement. Before referring to the pleas in the written statement it is noted that appellants no. 1 and 2/defendants no. 1 and 2 in spite of repeated opportunities did not lead evidence, and their evidence was resultantly closed. Therefore, in the present case evidence was led only on behalf of the respondent/plaintiff and there is no evidence as led by the appellants no. 1 and 2/defendants no. 1 and 2 which exists on record of the trial court.