M. L. GAUR Vs. SMT. VEENA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri S. Mehrotra holding brief for Sri A.K. Mehrotra and Sri Tiwari who appears for the contesting respondent.

(2.) This revision assails the correctness of an order dated 11 November 2013 passed by the Ist Additional District Judge rejecting an application made by the defendant-revisionist under Order 9, Rule 7 of the Civil Procedure Code.

(3.) The opposite parties instituted a suit under the provisions of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act seeking eviction of the revisionist. The suit was instituted on 7 January 2013. It appears that notices were issued for service upon the revisionist on 21 February 2013 and again on 21 March 2013. It is stated to have been thereafter transferred to the Court of the Ist Additional District Judge. The proceedings resumed before the Ist Additional District Judge when on 15 April 2013 fresh notices were issued to the revisionist. By an order dated 23 May 2013, the Court recorded that notices had been issued to the revisionist on more than one occasion and therefore came to the conclusion that he should be served by way of publication. The publication is thereafter stated to have been effected and consequently on 16 September 2013, the Court noted that service upon the revisionist was sufficient and accordingly directed for the suit to proceed ex parte. The matter was thereafter posted for final hearing on 18 October 2013 when it was closed ex parte for judgment. On 23 October 2013, the revisionist appeared and is stated to have filed an application purporting to be one under Order 9, Rule 7 CPC. This application has been rejected by the court below holding that it would not be maintainable.