SARDAR JAGAT SINGH NARULA Vs. YASHARTH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE revisions have been filed by the defendants against order dated 30.10.98 passed by Vth Additional District Judge, Allahabad disposing of Misc. Case No. 15 of 1995 and Misc. Case No. 20 of 1995 and rejecting the revisionist's application for setting aside ex parte decree and objection preferred under Section 47 of the C.P.C.

(2.) THE facts necessary for disposal of these revisions are these :- The opposite party Yasharth, son of Dr. Gyan Prakash, Advocate filed suit No. 32 of 1983 in the Court of Judge Small Causes/District Judge, Allahabad against the revisionist Sardar Jagat Singh Narula for eviction and realisation of arrears of rent and damages and water tax at the rate of 40 P. per day. The disputed property was one room accommodation in premises No. 27-C, Sardar Patel Marg, Allahabad.

(3.) THE defendant neither filed written statement nor appeared on 3.3.84 or on any date thereafter. The case, therefore, proceeded ex parte. The plaintiff proved his case on affidavit. The IVth Additional District Judge to whom the case was transferred, decreed the suit ex parte on 6.3.84. The plaintiff filed an application for execution which was registered as Execution Case No. 1/95 after a period of eleven years in the year 1995. The revisionist filed an objection under Section 47, C.P.C. on 31.5.95. It was averred that during the pendency of original Suit No. 32 of 1983, the parties settled their dispute outside the Court and it was agreed by the parties that the arrears of rent due shall be paid by the revisionist, in instalments, to the tune of Rs. 1000 per month. In pursuance of the compromise which was reduced in writing the revisionist paid Rs. 1000 to the opposite party-landlord through cheque on 28.1.84 and assured an early payment of the remaining sum. The landlord assured that he will not pursue his suit and got the same withdrawn in lieu of compromise between the parties. The revisionist being aged and gentleman believed that in pursuance of the compromise the suit would be withdrawn. The revisionist in pursuance of the compromise paid arrears of rent in regular instalments of Rs. 1000. The plaintiff, however, with evil design and bad motive instead of withdrawing the suit got the suit decreed ex parte. The said ex parte decree is nullity and void ab initio and consequently the revisionist cannot be evicted.