NIRANAJAN LAL Vs. 5TH ADDITIONAL DISTIRCT JUDGE ETACH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed by the tenant for quashing the judgment and order dated 24.1.1996 and 28.1.1995 (Annexures-5 and 4 to the writ petition) passed by the Revisional Court in Revision Nos. 6 of 1993 and 14 of 1989.

(2.) In respect of the premises in dispute, the respondents No. 3 and 4 filed a suit for recovery of arrears of rent and ejectemnt of the petitioner, which was registered as JSCC Suit No. 1 of 1989. When despite service of notice the defendant-petitioner did not appear in the suit, the Trial Court proceeded ex parte and vide judgment dated 4.5.1989 decreed the suit for the reliefs claimed. Thereafter, an application under Order IX, Rule 13, C.P.C. for setting aside the ex parte decree was filed by the petitioner with the allegations that he had no knowledge of the proceedings. No notices or summons were served upon him and it was only on 30/6/1989 that he acquired knowledge of the ex parte decree. Thereupon, he applied for inspection of the record and filed an application for recalling the order on 3/7/1989 alongwith affidavit. The petitioner also filed an application for furnishing security/ deposit of the decreetal amount as contemplated under the proviso to Section 17 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act, 1887, (hereinafter referred to as the 1887 Act). Respondents No.3 and 4 filed objections to recall application alleging that the petitioner had knowledge of the proceedings he deliberately did not appear, there is non-compliance of the proviso to Section 17 of the 1887 Act, therefore, the application for setting aside the ex parte decree was liable to be rejected.

(3.) It would be relevant to mention here that the defendant-petitioner also filed a revision on merit under Section 25 of the 1887 Act against the ex parte decree dated 4.5.1989, which was registered as JSCC Revision No. 14 of 1989.