RAMESH CHANDRA GOYAL Vs. IVTH ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is tenant's writ petition. Landlord respondent No.2 Ripusudan Paliwal filed suit for eviction against tenant Ramesh Chandra Goyal being suit (SCC Suit) No. 39 of 1983 before District Judge/JSCC Agra. The suit was transferred to the Court of XII Additional District Judge, Agra. In Para 1 of the writ petition, it is mentioned that tenant petitioner is retired Deputy Commissioner Sales Tax.

(2.) In the suit one of the dates fixed was 18-8-1988. On the said date the trial Court passed an order on the order sheet recording the absence of the plaintiff and presence of the defendant. The trial Court closed the evidence of the plaintiff and directed the case to proceed under Order 17 Rule 3. Civil Procedure Code. The defendant was required to produce his witness who examined himself as DW-1. Meanwhile application for adjournment was filed by the plaintiff, which was rejected and 19-8-1988 was fixed for judgment (order dated 18-8-1988 is quoted in para 4 of the writ petition). Thereafter another application was filed on the same date for recalling the said order against which objections were filed by the petitioner. Trial Court by order dated 14-10-1988, allowed the application, set-aside the order dated 18-8-1988, and permitted the plaintiff to lead evidence. This writ petition is directed against the aforesaid order dated 14-10-1988.

(3.) In my opinion there is absolutely nothing wrong in the impugned order. Trial Court was fully justified in providing opportunity of hearing to the plaintiff respondent. The order passed by the trial Court on 18-8-1988 and the procedure adopted on the said date i.e. recording of evidence of defendant's witness is not warranted under any of the provisions of Civil Procedure Code. On the said date the trial Court in view of absence of plaintiff closed his evidence, which had not even started and directed that case shall proceed under Order 17 Rule 3 C.P.C. and defendant shall produce his evidence. Under Order 17 Rule 3, it is provided that if the contingencies provided thereunder exist then Court may (b) if the parties are, or any of them is, absent, proceed under Rule 2.