AYODHYA PRASAD GUPTA Vs. PRATAP CHANDRA MEHRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed by the petitioner, challenges the orders dated 20th April, 2005, passed in Misc. Case No. 22/74 of 2005 by District Judge, Banda (Annexure-7 to the writ petition) and order dated 12th October, 2004 and 11th January, 2005, passed by Judge Small Cause Court, Civil Judge (Senior Division), Banda (Annexures-3 and 4 to the writ petition).

(2.) The brief facts of the case are as under: The respondent-landlord filed a suit against the petitioner for arrears of rent, mesne profit and ejectment in the Court of Judge Small Cause Court, Civil Judge, Senior Division, Banda on 7th October, 2003. On 11th November, 2003, after the service of summons, the petitioner-defendant appeared and sought for adjournment which was allowed by the Court till 19th January, 2004. However, the petitioner could not file written statement and sought for further adjournment on 24.8.2004 which was allowed by the Court on payment of cost of Rs. 30 and the next date fixed was 12th October, 2004, for filing written statement. On 12th October, 2004, no written statement was filed, therefore, the petitioner further sought adjournment. No time was granted by the trial court and next date fixed was 11th January, 2005. On 11th January, 2005, the petitioner filed an application for grant of time to file written statement. The trial court has rejected the said application. Thereafter the petitioner preferred a revision on 26th February, 2005, along with an application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The revisional court by the order dated 20th April, 2005, has dismissed the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and also the revision.

(3.) Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vishnu Gupta who has put in appearance on behalf of the contesting respondent. Both the learned Counsel have agreed that since question involved in the writ petition is pure question of law, therefore, it is not necessary to invite counter-affidavit and the matter may be heard finally.