MOHAMMAD GUFRAN Vs. RUKAIYA BANO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is directed against the order dated 2.7.2009 passed by Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Court No. 13, Allahabad in M.P.A. Case No. 19 of 2006 and the order dated 7.3.2003 passed by the Prescribed Authority in P.A. Case No. 2 of 1997, whereby the application of the respondent-landlady filed under section 21(1)(a) of the Act was allowed ex parte against the petitioner and thereafter the petitioner's application filed under Order IX, Rule 13 read wtih section 151, C.P.C. accompanied by an application for condonation of delay was dismissed. Brief facts of the case are as follows:

(2.) It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that since the matter was transferred on 16.8.2002 to the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad, Court No. 8 and again on 11.12.2002 to the Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Court No. 13 without intimation to the petitioner as required under Rule 89-A of General Rules (Civil), the ex parte order dated 7.3.2003 allowing the release application under section 21 of the Act was illegal and was liable to be set-aside.

(3.) Per contra, learned Counsel for the respondent has submitted that Rule 89-A of General Rules (Civil) is not at all applicable in the matter and the Court below was not under any obligation to intimate the petitioner, since the release application filed under section 21 of the Act was being heard ex parte prior to the transfer of the case to the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad, Court No. 8 for non-appearance of the petitioner and his Counsel in the pending proceeding. Besides this, the recall application for recall of the order dated 11.7.2000 was also earlier dismissed in default on 1.8.2001. Therefore, the Court below has not erred in passing the impugned orders.