MANOJ KUMAR JAISWAL Vs. NIJAMUDDIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) The instant revision is directed against the orders dated 24.8.2016, 25.4.2016 and 9.11.2015 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No.6, Deoria in SCC Suit No.11 of 2010. By order dated 9.11.2015, application 44 Ga filed by the plaintiff-respondent for striking off defence of the revisionist for non-compliance of the provisions of Order 15 Rule 5 CPC has been allowed. By order dated 25.4.2016, application 47-Ga filed by revisionist for recall of order dated 9.11.2015 has been rejected. By order dated 24.8.2016, application 49-Ga seeking review of the previous order has been rejected.

(3.) The orders have been passed in proceedings arising out of a suit for recovery of arrears of rent and eviction filed by the plaintiff-respondent against the defendant-revisionist. The defendant-revisionist contested the suit by filing written statement dated 27.9.2011. The admitted rent according to the defendant-revisionist is Rs.750/- per month. On 9.1.2015, the defendant was not present. The trial court, in his absence allowed application 44-Ga filed by the plaintiff-respondent and struck off the defence of the revisionist by observing that despite the previous order of the Court dated 20.10.2015, permitting the revisionist to deposit entire rent by the next date, there is no evidence that the order had been complied with. The revisionist, thereafter filed the application 47-Ga seeking recall of order dated 9.11.2015. By the said application, the defendant-revisionist brought on record a challan (paper No.50-Ga) to prove that rent, in compliance of order dated 20.10.2015 was deposited on 7.11.2015. He also took a plea to the effect that on account of his illness, he was absent from the court proceedings on 9.11.2015. The trial court, while deciding the said application returned a finding that the challan (paper No.50-Ga), by which rent was duly deposited in compliance of previous order, was submitted before the concerned clerk on 7.11.2015 and on the same date, it was passed and the money was deposited in the treasury. It however, thereafter proceeded to reject the said application by observing that even if the defendant-revisionist was ill, his counsel should have remained present to assist the court. It also made an observation that the revisionist had not deposited rent of subsequent months.