ISHAQUE HUSSAIN Vs. SMT. LAXMI DEVI AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of this writ petition the petitioner prays for a writ of Certiorari quashing the orders dated 11 -5 -1990, 30 -11 -1989 and 22 -5 -1989 passed by Respondent No. 2. The petitioner is a tenant and opposite party No. 1 is a landlady of the premises in dispute. The landlady filed a suit for arrears of rent and ejectment of the petitioner but the same was dismissed by the learned trial Judge. Aggrieved by the said order the landlady, opposite party No. 1, filed a revision which was allowed ex -parte on 22 -5 -89. The petitioner moved an application for setting aside the said ex -parte order on the next day but the same was also dismissed on 30 -11 -1989 in default. The petitioner again moved an application for restoration of the application which was dismissed on merit on 11 -5 -90. Aggrieved by the said order the petitioner filed the instant writ petition.

(2.) THE main grievance of the petitioner is that he was contesting the case from the very beginning and the suit for ejectment and arrears of rent was also dismissed by the learned trial Judge. It has further been alleged by the petitioner's counsel that on 30 -11 -1989 the petitioner's father as well as his pairokar was present in court but the said application for restoration was dismissed in default of the counsel. According to the counsel for the landlady no doubt the father and pairokar of the petitioner were present but as the petitioner or his counsel was not present there, the case was dismissed in default. From the perusal of the order it appears that the learned Judge was influenced by the fact that on the date fixed the pairokar of the petitioner as well his counsel was present, therefore, the petitioner was delaying the hearing of the revision. As pointed out above, neither the petitioner nor his counsel was present on the date fixed, therefore, in my opinion the learned court below committed an error in rejecting the restoration application on this ground. The petitioner moved the restoration application on the next day. Therefore, keeping in mind the ends of justice, I quash the orders dated 22 -5 -89, 30 -11 -89 and 11 -5 -90 and direct the parties to appear before the District Judge, Moradabad on 9 -5 -1991. The District Judge, Moradabad shall restore the revision to its original number and then hear and decide the same on merit within one month from 9 -5 -1991. The petitioner's counsel undertakes not to take any adjournment and participate in the hearing of the revision. However, the District Judge is free to pass any orders if the petitioner fails to appear before him.