SHAHJAHAN BEGUM Vs. XVIIITH ADJ MEERUT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) YATINDRA Singh, J. Plaintiff respon dents are landlord of the premises in dis pute. They filed a suit for eviction of the petitioner on the ground that she is a tenant at the rate of Rs. 50 per month and the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 are not ap plicable. This suit was dismissed for default on 15-12-1987. Plaintiff filed an application to recall this order. Thereafter the order dated 15-12-1987 was set-aside and the suit itself was decreed ex-parte on 2-9-1994. The petitioner filed an applica tion on 4-4-1998 to set-aside the ex-parte decree dated 2-9-1994. This application was dismissed by the Trial Court on 6-5-1998. Thereafter the petitioner filed two revisions. One revision was against the order dated 2-9-1994 decreeing the suit ex-parte alongwith an application for con doning the delay in filing the revision. The second revision was against the order of the trial Court dated 6-5-1996 dismissing the application of the petitioner for set ting aside the ex-parte decree. The revision against the order dated 2-9-94 was dis missed on the ground that it is barred by time and the Court refused to condoned the delay in filing the revision. The revision against the order dated 6-5- 98 was dismissed agreeing with the finding recorded by the trial Court dated 6-5-1998 that the petitioner has knowledge of the proceedings and there was no justification for recalling the ex-parte order dated 2-9-94. The petitioners have filed present writ petitions against these two revisional orders. The writ petition No. 36480of 2000 (earlier not writ petition) has been filed against the order of the Revisional Court dated 11-8-2000 and the order of the trial Court dated 6-5-1998 in refusing to set-aside the ex-pane decree dated 2-9-94. Subsequent writ petition has been filed against the order of the trial Court dated 2-9-94 decreeing the suit ex-parte and the order of the Revisional Court dated 11-8-2000 refusing to condone the delay in filing the revision.

(2.) 1 have heard Shri P. K. Jain, Counsel for the petitioner and Shri VM. Zaidi, Counsel for the plaintiff- respondent, Shri P. K. Jain, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the suit itself was dismissed on 15-12-1987 and there after it was restored without knowledge to the petitioner and for these reasons she could not appear and defend the case. In view of this, the petitioner's application for setting aside ex- pane decree dated 20-9-94 ought to have allowed and the order dated 6-5-98 and 11-6-2000 dismissing her application to set aside the ex-parte decree be quashed. He further submitted that the petitioners had no knowledge about the ex-parte decree till 1-4-98. Thereafter she filed an application to set aside the ex-parte and she fell ill. Then as soon as the decree of the trial Court dated 2-9-94 was made available she made a revision against the same and there was sufficient cause in landing the delay filing the revision against the ex-pane decree 2-9-94 and the Court ought to have con doned the delay in filing the revision against the same.