NATHMAL AGARWAL Vs. LT. COL. SUDHISH KUMAR SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revisionist/landlord had instituted SCC suit, way back in the year 1993, which was numbered as Suit No.03 of 1993. The same was dismissed for want of prosecution on number of earlier occasions, during its pendency and ultimately, till it was dismissed for want of prosecution on 25.11.2014. Seeking its recall, the plaintiff/revisionist, herein, had filed a Miscellaneous Application under Order 9 Rule 4 of the CPC to be read with Section 151 of the CPC along with the delay condonation application, which was numbered as Paper No. 5C before the learned Trial Court; seeking recall of the order dated 25.11.2014. By the impugned order, which has been put to under challenge before this Court, in the present civil revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act, it is the rejection of the restoration application, seeking restoration of the prior restoration application, which has been rejected.

(2.) The respondents have put in appearance through Mr. Shikhar Kacker, Advocate, as a Caveator. He was heard on merits of the matter. In case, if the judgment impugned itself is taken into consideration in its entirety, the reason assigned by the learned court of Judge SCC/Additional District Judge, 4th, Dehradun, while rejecting the SCC Misc. Case No.01 of 2016 "Nathmal Agarwal Vs. Lt. Col. Sudhish Kumar Sharma and others" is bad in the eyes of law.

(3.) On the previous occasions when the suit was being proceeded, there had been some dereliction or slackness and non- diligence, on part of the landlord/revisionist, in contesting the proceedings and the matter was dismissed in default and thereafter it was restored earlier on couple of occasions. It was those reasons, and act of plaintiff, which has been extracted by the learned Judge, Small Causes Court for rejecting the restoration application, as it was apparent from the findings recorded in the paragraph no.6 of the said judgment, where the logic assigned by the Court below for rejecting the restoration application, was that on the prior dates, the landlord/revisionist remained absent, matter was dismissed for want of prosecution and it was later on restored.