DEEPAK KASHINATH BAPAT Vs. MUKUND R PATVARDHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Revision Application is directed against the order dated October 3, 1992 passed by the learned 5th Jt. Civil Judge (J.D.), Vadodara below application Exh. 43 in Misc. Civil Application No. 175/89 whereby the petitioner is permitted to tender Rent Note in evidence, but is refused permission to lead evidence petitioning the said Rent Note.

(2.) The petitioner, i.e. Deepak Kashinath Bapat as original plaintiff had filed Regular Civil Suit No. 3/82 for obtaining vacant possession of the suit premises. The defendant, i.e. the respondent No. 1 herein did not file Written Statement. Under the circumstances, the suit'was tried ex parte and decree of eviction was passed in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner thereafter filed Execution Application No. 218/82 for executing the decree of eviction passed in his favour. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner obtained possession of the suit premises on November 3, 1982 in execution proceedings.

(3.) The respondent No. 1 herein preferred an appeal against the ex parte decree. As the appeal was time barred, the defendant also filed an application for condonation of delay. Ultimately, the appeal filed by the respondent No. 1 came to be allowed by the Appellate Court and the respondent No. 1 was directed to file a separate application for restitution of possession of the suit premises. It is an admitted position that accordingly the respondent No. 1 has filed Application No. 175/89 for restitution. In the restitution proceedings the petitioner has appeared and it is his case that the restitution application deserves to be rejected because on 11-11- 1992 possession of the suit premises was handed over to the respondent No. 2, i.e. Nandiniben Atmaram Apte on rent of Rs. 300/- per month after a rent note was executed by the respondent No. 2 in his favour.