MOHD ALI Vs. ADDL COMMISSIONER JUDICIAL MORADABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri R. D. Singh, holding brief of Sri Shailendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

(2.) Perused the orders impugned passed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

(3.) From the perusal of the orders impugned, it is apparent on face of record that petitioner has filed a suit under Section 229B of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 before respondent No. 2 in which contesting respondent filed written statement denying the averments made in the plaint. The aforesaid suit was dismissed in default on 8.2.1994 and also on 11.1.1996. The aforesaid dismissal in default orders were set aside by the learned trial court on showing sufficient cause by the petitioner which prevented him to remain present when the case was called on for hearing. It is evident that the present suit was again dismissed in default on 18.3.1999 and a restoration application was moved by the petitioner within five days, i.e., on 23.3.1999. The aforesaid restoration application has been rejected by respondent No. 2, vide his order dated 30.8.1999 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition).