SMT. URMILA TULI Vs. PRAKASH BHALOTIA AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a civil revision filed Under Sec. 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. A suit No. 4 of 1977 was filed by Prakash Bhalotia, Plaintiff -opposite party No. 1 for ejectment of the applicant and Major Dhirendra Nath Singh, opposite party No. 2 from a shop in dispute and for arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 3,600/ -. This suit was decreed for arrears of rent but dismissed in regard to ejectment, by an order passed by the 1st Additional District Judge dated 29th November, 1978 exercising the power of Provincial Small Cause Court Act. Against this judgment the Plaintiff -opposite party filed a revision No. 530 of 1979 against the refusal to grant a decree for ejectment and sought a modification of the decree passed by the court below. This revision came up for hearing before Hon'ble Gopi Nath, J. (as he then was) who by judgment dated 17.04.1980 remanded the case to the court below for a fresh decision. This Court held that the Act No. XIII of 1972 was applicable to the property in dispute and as such it was necessary to determine whether the Defendants in the suit were defaulters within the meaning of Sec. 20(1) of the Act. So far as the decree for arrears of rent is concerned, it became final.

(2.) After the remand by this Court, the Plaintiff -opposite party moved an application (56C) on 9th December, 1980, requesting the court to strike -off the defence of the Defendants. This application was allowed by the court on 08.05.1981. The defence was struck -off. Against the Order dated 07.05.1981 the present revision has been filed by the Defendant -applicant.

(3.) I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. Learned Counsel for the revisionist has contended that once the trial court decided the suit it implied that the trial court did not think it proper to strike -off the defence. In the previous revision in this Court also this question was not raised by the Plaintiff -opposite party and as such the court below has acted arbitrarily and unreasonably in the exercise of his discretion in striking -off the defence.