HARMEET KAUR Vs. ASHOK KUMAR AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri Rajesh Tandon learned Senior Counsel for the applicant and Shri H.P. learned Counsel for opposite party.

(2.) A suit for rent and ejectment was decreed exparte on 6.2.2002 against the applicant who was one of the defendant in the suit and other defendants. An application under Order IX, Rule 13 C.P.C. was filed by the defendants including the applicant. That application was rejected by the impugned order dated 8.7.2002. Against that order a writ petition pending. During the pendency of the writ petition another application under Order IX, Rule 13 was filed. By the impugned order this application has been rejected. The Court below has found that the fact that earlier application was rejected was certified by the applicant. It has been held that successive applications by the same party are not maintainable. There is no error in the view taken by the Court below. The revision is dismissed.

(3.) It was prayed by the learned Counsel for the applicant that the some time may be granted to the applicant to vacate the premises. Counsel for the opposite party was also heard on this point. He states that time may be granted to the provided the applicant deposits the entire decreetal amount and vacates the premises within three months and gives an undertaking to the trial Court that he will vacate by 20.3.2003 from today.