BHAGWATI PRASAD Vs. MADHAVI BALUTIA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties.

(2.) LEARNED Counsel for Respondents states that he does not want to file counter affidavit and revision be disposed of at the admission stage itself. He further states that the matter involves a legal issue and the order passed by Additional District Judge, is a speaking order.

(3.) ACCORDING to the revisionist, a, Smt. Madhavi Balutia and Ors. v. Bhagwati Prasad S.C.C. suit No. 08 of 2009, for recovery of rent and ejectment, has been filed in the court of Judge Small Causes Court/District Judge, Nainital. Notices were issued to the revisionist/Respondent but were served upon the son of the revisionist/Respondent. Learned District Judge, deemed sufficient service on Respondent and on 31.08.2009, proceeded ex parte. Thereafter on 15.09.2009, the case was transferred to the court of Additional District Judge/Ist F.T.C., Haldwani. Learned Counsel for revisionist has contended that no notice under Rule 89 -A of General Rules (Civil), was issued to the revisionist/Respondent after transfer of the case to the court of Additional District Judge/Ist F.T.C., Haldwani, which is mandatory in nature. Rule 89 -A of General Rules (Civil), is being reproduced as under: