SRI NATH AGRAWAL Vs. SRI NATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A suit for the ejectment of the revisionist was filed by the opposite party on 22nd August, 1978 after terminating his tenancy by means of a notice issued under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. Along with the filing of the suit, by means of a separate application, the plaintiff prayed for attachment before judgment of certain property belonging to the defendant revisionist. The Court ordered issue of notice on this application against the defendant and also issued interim attachment order. In the notice, 4th of September, 1978 was fixed for hearing of the application. In response to this application, the revisionist made an appearance through counsel and on 3-9-1978 prayed for time to file objections against the plaintiff's application for attachment before judgment as his (defendant's) counsel was going out of station for some time. This application was allowed fixing 11-9-1978 for filing objections, On 11-9-1978, the counsel for the defendant was present in Court and filed necessary objections against the plaintiff's application for attachment before judgment. The hearing of this application and objections thereon was, then, adjourned for 30th Sept. 1978. The Court further ordered on that very day that the defendant may file his written statement within one month and further the suit came up for final hearing on 24th October, 1978. In the original record, on the order sheet for 11-9-78 there are three dates written and there are signatures of the counsel also. The case could not, however, be taken up on 30th Sept., and was posted for disposal of applications on 14-10-1978. On 11-10-78, no written statement was filed but an application was moved later on 23rd October, 78 requesting for time to file written statement and also praying for condonation of delay. The written statement was actually filed on 25-11-1978. On 24-10-78, the defendant deposited a sum of Rupees 12,000/- with the permission of the court. Admittedly this amount covers the entire dues payable to the plaintiff on that date.

(2.) In the Court below, the defendant's contention was that since he had deposited the entire amount before the first date of hearing, he was entitled to the protection of Sub-clause (4) of Section 20 of the U. P. Act XIII of 1972 and should be relieved against his ejectment by the court. This plea did not find favour with the Court below who decreed the suit against the defendant, hence this revision.

(3.) The only substantial point which has been urged in support of his contention by Sri Ravi Kant, learned counsel for the revisionist, is that in this case ad-mittedly no summons had been issued and, therefore, the defendant has not been given an opportunity of taking benefit of Section 20 (4) of U. P. Act XIII of 72 by depositing the requisite money on or before the first date of hearing read with Explanation added in 1976. Admittedly, it is argued that the defendant has deposited the entire amount that could be legally due against him on 24th October, 78 which was the first date when the court applied its mind and this should be treated as the date of hearing of the suit. Prior to this date, no other date was fixed for hearing in the suit. In order to appreciate the argument that has been advanced, it is necessary to have the provisions of Section 20 (4) of the Act before us.