KISHAN BHADUR Vs. IIND ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE DEHRADUN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Kishan Bahadur has filed this petition to challenge judgment and order dated 4th August 1999 passed by the Court below under Section 25, Provincial Small Causes Court Act in S.C.C. Revision No. 53 of 1996, Kishan Bahadur v. Narendra Rai Gupta (Annexure-6 to the writ petition) and judgment and order dated 12th December, 1996 passed by Judge Small Causes Court, Dehradun rejecting application/ objection filed by the petitioner under Section 47, Code of Civil Procedure against J. C. C. Miscellaneous Case No. 21 of 1993 (Annexure-5) to the writ petition) arising from Suit No. 28 of 1990, which was decreed by the Judge Small Causes Court. Dehradun vide judgment and order dated 2nd February 1993 whereby Small Causes Court Suit No. 28 of 1990, Narendra Rai Gupta v. Kishan Bahadur, was allowed and decreed requiring the tenant-petitioner to vacate the accommodation and pay arrears of rent, costs of notice etc.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that Suit No. 28 of 1990 was filed by Narendra Rai Gupta and another (plaintiffs-respondent Nos. 3 and 4). Petitioner filed written statement, but thereafter he did not appear before the Court. Consequent whereupon an ex parte judgment and order dated 2nd February 1993 was passed. Against the said order Revision No.. 53 of 1996 along with application under Section 5, Limitation Act was filed. Application under Section 5, Limitation Act was rejected. Revision was also dismissed as not maintainable. Petitioner-tenant challenged the said order of the revisional court by filing civil Mise. Writ Petition in this Court and the same was dismissed. Thereafter he filed Special Leave Petition, which was also dismissed. These facts have been averred in Paragraph Nos. 9 and 10 of writ petition copy of the order dated 20th December. 1995 passed on petition for Special Leave Petition (Civil No. 351 of 1996) passed against the aforesaid order of High Court in Writ Petition No. 37306 of 1995 had been produced by Sri R. R. Shivhare. Advocate and the same have been perused as learned counsel for the petitioner has not disputed the same. Copies of the judgment and Writ Petition No. 37306 of 1996 have not been annexed.

(3.) It is stated at the Bar that on behalf of Kishan Bahadur a request was made to the learned single Judge who heard the aforesaid writ petition to grant three months' time to vacate the premises in question. And the learned single Judge, proceeding on that basis, granted three months time to vacate the premises in question provided an undertaking was filed before respondent No. 2.