SUNIL AGARWAL Vs. MADHVI THAKUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) TWO suits were filed for eviction in the year 2007 and, since then, the proceedings have been going on and the matter was being adjourned for one reason or the other. It has been stated that since January, 2010, the trial court became vacant on account of the non -availability of the Presiding Officer. On 23rd July, 2010, the case was transferred to the court of 2nd A.D.J., Dehradun and 30th July, 2010 was fixed as the date for the evidence of the Plaintiff. Notice to the counsel was issued which was duly received on 30th July, 2010. An application was filed by the Plaintiff's counsel for adjournment which was rejected by an order dated 30th July, 2010 and the evidence of the Plaintiff's witnesses was closed. The trial court, thereafter, fixed 6" August, 2010 as the next date fixed for the evidence of the Defendant's witnesses.

(2.) ON 6" August, 2010, the Defendant appeared in person alongwith an application for adjournment on the ground that his counsel was out of station. The trial court rejected this application but adjourned the matter in the interest of justice and fixed 9th August, 2010 for the examination of the Defendant's witnesses. On 9" August, 2010 when the case was called out, no one appeared on behalf of the Defendant. The court accordingly closed the evidence of the Defendant and fixed 10th August, 2010 for hearing. On 10th August, 2010, the matter was heard ex -parte since the Defendant did not appear nor his counsel appeared and the judgment was reserved and was pronounced on 12th August, 2010 and the suit of (sic, was) decreed.

(3.) HEARD Sri Piyush Garg, the Learned Counsel for the revisionist and Sri Neeraj Garg, the Learned Counsel for the Respondent.