TRIBHUWAN PRASAD Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE, GHAZIPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) List revised. No one appears for the respondent. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner.

(2.) Landlord-respondent Madan Mohan Pandey filed SCC Suit No. 3 of 1991 against tenant-petitioner for his eviction from the property in dispute which is a shop situate in Ghazipur. The suit was decreed ex parte. Thereafter, restoration application was filed and in compliance of provisions of Sec. 17 Provincial Small Causes Courts Act entire decretal amount was also deposited which was Rs. 8896/-. The suit was restored on 22.10.1994. Thereafter, some dates were fixed one of which was 16.2.1995. On the said date petitioner deposited additional amount of Rs. 5104.00. Till then written statement had not been filed and time was being granted for filing the written statement. Written statement was filed on 1.3.1995. The Trial Court JSCC held that on the date immediately after restoration, the entire balance amount should have been deposited. 22.11.1994 was the date fixed after restoration. In between 22.11.1994 and 16.2.1995 only one date i.e. 16.1.1995 was fixed. From the order sheet of 16.1.1995, It appears that copy of the plaint was given by the plaintiff to the defendants on the said date. The suit was decreed on 13.2.1996 by JSCC Ghazipur. Rent Control Civil Revision No. 2 of 1996 filed against the judgment and decree of the JSCC was dismissed on 26.3.1996 by District Judge, Ghazipur, hence, this writ petition.

(3.) Until filing of the written statement Court is not in a position to apply its mind to the respective cases of the parties. If written statement is filed within the time granted by the Court then no date prior to filing of the written statement can be said to be the first date of hearing. I have discussed this point in detail in K.K. Gupta Vs. A.D.J., 2004 (57) ALR 776, after considering five authorities of Supreme Court. From the judgment of the Trial Court it is clear that in case 16.2.1995 or any subsequent date was taken as first date of hearing then petitioner had complied with the provisions of Sec. 20 (4) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. Accordingly, I hold that judgment and decree passed by JSCC/Civil Judge. (SD) Ghazipur on 13.2.1996 and judgment and order passed by the District Judge, Ghazipur on 26.3.1996 in R.C. Civil Revision No. 2 of 1996 (ought to be SCC Revision) are erroneous in law.