VIJAY SINGH PARIHAR Vs. MAMTA DIXIT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant petition is directed against order dated 21.5.2018 passed by Judge, Small Causes in SCC Suit No. 155/2014 rejecting the application 32Ga for recalling order dated 21.5.2018 and for granting time for filing written statement. The order passed by the Revisional Court dated 8.1.2019 dismissing the revision is also under challenge.

(2.) The plaintiff respondent instituted SCC Suit No. 155/2014 against the petitioner for recovery of arrears of rent and for eviction from building No. 124/323B Block, Govind Nagar, Kanpur Nagar. The petitioner upon being served with summons appeared in the suit on 27.11.2014 and filed an application under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint. The application was rejected by the trial Court by order dated 30.9.2015 and the petitioner was granted time to file written statement. However, the petitioner kept on buying time and did not file written statement even up to 21.5.2018. On 21.5.2018, the petitioner was not present before the trial Court nor any application was filed by him seeking adjournment. Consequently, the trial Court was compelled to pass an order forfeiting the right of the petitioner to file written statement and directed for proceedings being held ex-parte against him. On 31.5.2018, the petitioner filed an application seeking recall of the order dated 21.5.2018. On 1.8.2018, he sought adjournment on the pretext that he had engaged a new counsel and who would inspect the file. On 8.8.2018, the petitioner again sought adjournment on the same ground. This time, the trial Court allowed the adjournment application by imposing cost of Rs. 1000/- and further cautioned the petitioner that in case, he seeks further adjournments, orders will be passed ex-parte.

(3.) The trial Court while considering the application of the petitioner seeking recall of order dated 21.5.2018 has observed that the Eplanation given by the petitioner that he could not file written statement on 21.5.2018, as his counsel had to leave for his home town for some personal work is not at all convincing. It has also held that there is no valid explanation on part of the petitioner for not being able to file written statement since last four years. Accordingly, the application has been rejected.