VIJAY KUMAR Vs. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed by the tenant for quashing the order dated 29.1.2000 passed by respondent No. 2, Civil Judge, Junior Division, Muzaffar Nagar and the order dated 6.9.2002 passed by respondent No. 1 Additional District Judge, Muzaffar Nagar whereby the application of the petitioner for setting aside ex parte decree has been rejected and the revision against the same has also been dismissed.

(2.) The dispute relates to a portion of House No. 618 Civil Lines South, Bagh Pyarelal near D.A.V. College, Muzaffar Nagar. The respondent No. 3 is the owner landlord of the said house and the petitioner is a tenant of one of the rooms of the said house at monthly rent of Rs. 125/-. The landlord respondent No. 3 filed suit for ejectment of the petitioner on the ground of default, which was registered as S.C.C. Suit No. 16 of 1996. In the said suit the defendant after initial contest failed to appear and, therefore, the trial Court directed that the case may be proceed ex-parte vide order dated 6.1.1998. After the suit proceeded exparte it was dismissed in default on 28.4.1998. Thereafter, the plaintiff respondent No. 3 filed an application for recalling the order dated 28.4.1998, which was allowed on 25.8.1998. Subsequently, the suit was decreed ex-parte on 16.2.1999. The petitioner claimed to have acquired knowledge of the ex-parte decree on 5.7.1999. He applied for setting aside the ex-parte decree on 15.7.1999 by filing an application under Order IX, Rule 13, C.P.C. and also making necessary compliance as provided in the proviso to Section 17 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act, 1887. The petitioner also filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condoning the delay in filing the application under Order IX, Rule 13, C.P.C. Both the applications of the petitioner were dismissed by the trial Court on 29.1.2000. The revision filed by the petitioner being S.C.C. Revision No. 221 of 2001 was also dismissed vide judgment dated 6.9.2002 by respondent No. 1. Aggrieved by the said orders, the present writ petition has been filed.

(3.) I have heard Shri Nalin Kumar Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri Rajiv Gupta, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 3, Shri Rajiv Gupta stated that he does not propose to file counter affidavit. The matter is being heard finally on the joint request of the Counsel for the parties.