SHANTI DEVI Vs. HANEEF

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri B.D. Mandhyan, Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Satish Mandhyan, Counsel for the petitioner, Sri D.K. Tripathi appearing for caveator respondent and perused the record. S.C.C. Suit No. 47 of 1992 was filed by the landlord respondent in the Court of Judge, Small Causes, Mathura for ejectment of the petitioner and for recovery of rent for three years @ Rs. 200/- per month. As the petitioner tenant did not appear for about seven years, the Trial Court passed an order dated 21.7.1999 directing to proceed ex parte. The petitioner filed an application (58 Ga) for recalling the order dated 21.7.1999, which was allowed vide order dated 18.1.2000 and thereafter he again remained absent. The suit in the circumstances was decreed ex parte by judgment and order dated 19.3.2008.

(2.) An application under Order IX, Rule 13, C.P.C. alongwith an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act was filed by the petitioner on 2.12.2009 for recalling the order dated 19.3.2008. The Trial Court found that the cause shown for condoning the delay was not sufficient and accordingly rejected the delay condonation application. As a consequence, the application under Order IX, Rule 13, C.P.C. was also rejected vide order dated 25.2.2010. Relevant extract of the order in this regard is thus:

(3.) Aggrieved by the order aforesaid, the petitioner preferred civil revision No. 10 of 2010 against the order dated 25.2.2010 before the District Judge, Mathura. The Revisional Court after hearing the parties came to the conclusion that it is apparent from record that petitioner remained continuously absent since 25.11.2003 and did not attend the proceedings, with the result that suit was ex parte decreed on 19.3.2008 and that application under Order IX, Rule 13 alongwith delay condonation application was made after one year and eight months and that too on untenable grounds. The Revisional Court opined that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Trial Court has not committed any error in rejecting the application for condonation of delay and the application under Order IX, Rule 13 and accordingly dismissed the revision with cost by judgment and order dated 13.8.2010.