DURGA PRASAD Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE VARANASI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendant of SCC Suit No. 52 of 2006 has filed this writ petition for setting aside the order dated 2lst January, 2008 passed by the judge, Small Cause Courts, by which the application filed by him seeking one month further time to file the written statement was rejected and the Suit was decreed ex-parte under Order VIII, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The petitioner has also sought the quashing, of the judgment and order dated 15th february, 2008 by which the revision filed by the tenant under section 25 of the provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 for setting aside the aforesaid order was dismissed.

(2.) THE landlord had presented the plaint of the aforesaid suit for ejectment and for recovery of arrears of rent on 27th September, 2006. On 21st May, 2007 the Court directed that the case shall proceed ex-parte as the written statement was not filed. The defendant moved an application under Order IX, rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This application was allowed but the written statement was still not filed even though time was repeatedly granted by the Court. However, the last application dated 21st January, 2008 filed by the tenant seeking one month further time was rejected by the Court by the order dated 21st January, 2008 and by the same order the suit was decreed ex-parte under Order VIII, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The revision filed by the defendant tenant was dismissed.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Court below committed an illegality in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner-tenant seeking one month further time to file the written statement. He further submitted that even otherwise, the order decreeing the Suit is liable to be set aside as the Suit has been decreed merely on the ground that the defendant did not file the written statement. Elaborating his submission, he contended that the Court was not entitled to act merely on the allegations of the plaint but could act on proved evidence and that no reasons whatsoever have been mentioned in the judgment for decreeing the suit, in support of his contention he has placed reliance upon the judgments of this Court in akhtar Yar Khan and others v. Azahar Yar Khan, 1993 0 JRJ 653 and in Pradeep Narain Sharma v. Satya Prakash Pandey, 2000 38 ALR 593.