JAY RAM SINGH Vs. PREETA GARG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri Sunil Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Amit Kumar Chaudhary, learned counsel who has just now filed his vakalatnama on behalf of respondent.

(2.) S.C.C. Suit No.44 of 2012 - Smt. Preeti Garg Vs. Jairam Singh has been decreed ex parte by Judge Small Causes Court/Additional District Judge, Court No.10, Meerut on 16.1.2013. This revision is directed against the said decree. The said suit was filed by the opposite party-landlady against tenant applicant in this revision for eviction claiming that rate of rent was Rs. 4,000.00 per month. Property in dispute is a house. Suit proceeded ex-parte and on 10.1.2013 arguments of plaintiff's counsel were heard and 16.1.2013 was fixed for delivery of judgment. On 16.1.2013 i.e. on the date which was fixed for delivery of judgment but before judgment could be delivered application was filed by the counsel of the defendant/tenant stating that he had been engaged on that very date and prayed that earlier order fixing the suit for delivery of judgment be recalled and he may be permitted to inspect the file and be heard before deciding the suit. In the impugned judgment dated 16.1.2013 reference has been made to the said application. However, thereafter the learned A.D.J. referred to the Supreme Court authority reported in Arjun Singh Vs. Mohindra Kumar and Ors. AIR 1964 SC 993 and held that after completion of arguments and before delivery of judgment such application was not maintainable. I fully agree with the view taken by the learned A.D.J.

(3.) On inquiry from court as to why tenant applicant is not filing restoration application learned counsel for the applicant states that after the rejection of applicant's application dated 16.1.2013 through the impugned judgment itself, restoration application will not be maintainable before learned A.D.J. This apprehension is incorrect. In view of the aforesaid Supreme Court the restoration application will be very well maintainable.