RAM LAXMAN Vs. J C BASS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application in revision under S.25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act has been filed by a defendant in a suit for his ejectment from a shop. The order impugned in the Revision is dt. Nov. 22, 1985. It reads thus :

(2.) Suit No. 425 of 1982 was filed on Nov. 11, 1982. The defendant had, eventually, to be served by publication. After repeated opportunities, the suit was decreed ex parte and the decree was put into execution. The defendant then made an application under O.IX, R.13, C. P. C. which was allowed. The suit was decreed ex parte again after some adjournments and a second application under O.IX, R.13, C. P. C. made by the defendant was allowed on Mar., 1984. Thereafter, the case was adjourned on various dates for some reason or the other, mostly on account of the prayer made by the defendant, and on July 24, 1985 the application 79/C was moved. By this application the defendant prayed that the suit of the plaintiff be dismissed without entering into the merits of the case, inasmuch as, the provisions of U. P. Act 13 of 1972 were applicable to the building in question and on the allegations made in the plaint itself, it was apparent that it was so. Further, the plaintiff had not given out any reason contemplated by S.20 of that Act for the ejectment of the defendant. Denying the allegations made in the application, the plaintiff filed his objection 80/C.

(3.) Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act says that the High Court, for the purpose of satisfying itself that a decree or order made in any case decided by a Court of Small Causes was according to law, may call for the record of the case and pass such order with respect thereto as it thinks fit.