ASHOK KUMAR VERMA Vs. SANJAI KUMAR TRIVEDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The tenant has filed this petition for setting aside the ex-parte decree dated 9th May, 2007 passed by the Judge, Court of Small Causes in SCC Suit No. 296 of 2006 filed by the landlord for eviction from the house in dispute. The petitioner has also sought the quashing of the judgment and order dated 24th September, 2011 by which the application filed by the petitioner under Section 5 of the Limitation Act with the Revision filed by him under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') has been rejected and consequently the Revision has been dismissed.

(2.) It transpires from the records of the writ petition that ex-parte decree dated 9th May, 2007 was passed by the Judge, Court of Small Causes against which a Revision was filed by the petitioner under Section 25 of the Act on 24th February, 2010. This Revision was accompanied by an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. It was inter alia stated that it was only on 2nd August, 2008 that the judgment debtor came to know about the ex-parte decree whereafter he filed objections in the Execution Case filed by the decree holder in 2008 which were rejected on 25th January, 2010 against which a Revision was filed on 17th February, 2010 which is pending. The petitioner had earlier contacted Sri Kamlapati Tripathi, Advocate, Kanpur Nagar, who informed him that a Revision could be filed against the ex-parte order with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for explaining the delay. The explanation given in the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act which accompanied the Revision is that though the certified copy of the judgment and decree was obtained by the defendant judgment debtor on 29th August, 2008, but the Advocate fell ill from 1st September, 2008 and when he recovered on 20th February, 2010 and started coming to the Court, the Revision was prepared and filed on 24th February, 2010.

(3.) The Revisional Court has rejected the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and consequently the Revision has also been dismissed.