MAHABIR PRASAD Vs. INDIRA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision, under S.25, Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, against an order dated 22-7-1985, of the IIIrd Additional District Judge, Lucknow, exercising powers of the Judge, Small Causes, has been opposed at the stage of admission and the learned counsel for the parties have been heard in detail on merits.

(2.) Small Cause Court Suit No. 33 of 1977 was filed by opposite party 3, Raj Kishore Rastogi, against the revisionist Mahabir Prasad Jain, his wife opposite party 1, his son opposite party 2, and other opposite parlies for ejectment from a house and for recovery of arrears of rent. The suit was contested. Parties had led all their evidence; only the present revisionist Mahabir Prasad Jain was to be examined as a witness for the defendants. On 28-5-1981, an application for adjournment on the ground of the revisionist's inability to be present having been rejected, the suit was decreed by the Judge Small Cause Court on 29-5-1981. Civil Revision No. 78 of 1981 was filed by the defendants who had applied for adjournment, but their prayer was refused. Civil Revision No. 111 of 1981 was filed by the present revisionist whose evidence could not be recorded. The two revisions were heard and decided by Hon'ble K. S. Varma, J. by judgment dated 26-4-1983 - copy, Annexure 2, to the counter-affidavit in this revision. The relevant portion of the order of this Court runs as follows :-

(3.) Sri Pradeep Kant Advocate has appeared on behalf of the revisionist. His contention is that since the Courts were closed on 14th and 15th of May, 1983, the defendant-revisionist was entitled, in law, to deposit the amount in Court on 16-5-1983. He next contends that since on 13-5-83 the plaintiff had refused to accept the amount, offered to him by the revisionist, he was entitled to deposit the amount in Court. In this connection it is also complained that the lower Court did not give an opportunity to the revisionist to adduce evidence to prove the refusal of the offer of the amount by the plaintiff-opposite party 3 made by the revisionist.