GOPAL PRASAD PANDEY Vs. NAURANGI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the parties. This petition is directed against concurrent judgments dated 1.2.1994 and 15.5.2007 by which a suit for eviction and arrears of rent against the petitioner has been decreed by both the Courts below. The admitted facts are that the alleged registered agreement of sale dated 5.9.1983 was executed in favour of the petitioner-tenant by one Bal Mukund Sharma holding power of attorney of the respondent owner and landlord and a Original Suit No. 189 of 1985 was also filed by the petitioner for specific performance of the said contract. During the pendency of the suit the respondent landlord instituted SCC Suit No. 32 of 1992 after due notice, for arrears of rent and eviction which was decreed ex parte on 1.2.1994 and the application for recall under Order IX, Rule 13 was also rejected and a revision against the ex parte decree was dismissed on the ground of delay on 21.12.1998 which was subjected to challenge in Writ Petition No. 11756 of 1999 before this Court which was allowed vide order dated 14.7.2004 setting aside the revisional order and directing it to decide the revision on merits. While the aforesaid writ petition was still pending, the suit filed by the petitioner was dismissed on 30.11.2002 but with the relief for return of the part sale consideration against which the petitioner preferred Civil Appeal No. 9 of 2003. Upon remand by this Court, the rent revision has been dismissed on merits which is under challenge in this petition. During the pendency of this petition, the Civil Appeal No. 9 of 2003 preferred by the petitioner was also dismissed on 7.12.2009 against which he has filed a second appeal in the registry which has not been admitted till date.

(2.) From the record it is apparent that the only argument raised before the Revisional Court was with regard to service of notice on the petitioner which has been reiterated before this Court.

(3.) It is urged that in view of Order V, Rule 19-A, C.P.C., the Trial Court was duty bound to issue summons for personal service apart from summons through registered post but since summons for personal service were never issued, service could not be presumed.