HAR KUMAR VIDYARTHI Vs. SUDHA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner-tenant had made an application under Order IX, Rule 13 of the C.P.C. before the Judge Small Cause Court for setting aside the ex parte decree, which has been rejected for non-compliance, of the condition contained in Section 17 of Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. The revision filed by the petitioner has also been rejected by the District Judge, Sultanpur. In this writ petition both the aforesaid orders (Annexures-1 and 2) have been challenged.

(2.) The opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 are the landlords who filed a suit for ejectment and arrears of rent against the petitioner, opposite party Nos. 3, 4 and two other persons (since deceased). The petitioner having fallen ill, could not attend the trial court. He was admitted in Escorts Heart Institute and Research Centre, New Delhi, for treatment where he remained confined for about three months. On his return, he came to know that suit has proceeded ex parte against all the defendants. Application moved under Order IX, Rule 7. C.P.C. for recalling the order dated 25.3.2004 was rejected on the ground that hearing had taken place. The suit was decreed ex parte on 27.3.2004.

(3.) The petitioner moved application under Order IX, Rule 13, C.P.C. on 29.3.2004, stating the circumstances on account of which he could not appear on the date of hearing. The landlord opposed that. application inter alia, on the ground that neither the decretal amount has been deposited nor security has been furnished under Section 17 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act.