SRIPAL SINGH Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE, HARDOI AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is by the defendant against the Judgment and orders of the trial court and the revisional Court whereby the suit of the plaintiff -respondent No. 3 for eviction was decreed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued the point of service of the notice of demand and eviction which was said to have been served on the defendant -petitioner. It is contended that the defendant -petitioner had categorically stated in the written statement that no notice was received by him. In the witness box, the defendant categorically stated that the acknowledgment due receipt, paper No. 9 -C, did not contain his signatures and that his signatures thereon were forged. The submission further made is that despite this positive denial and the statement on oath given by the defendant petitioner, the learned trial court accepted the service of notice even though there was no evidence to rebut the statement of the defendant -petitioner.

(2.) AS would appear from the written statement, copy Annexure 2, paragraph 6 of the plaint which contained an averment about the service of the notice was denied. Again, in paragraph 8 of the written statement it was expressly mentioned that no notice dated 4th September, 1986 was received by the tenant. To the same effect is the statement contained in paragraph 18 of the written statement.

(3.) LEARNED trial Court, it appears, did not discuss this aspect of the matter. Only thing stated in the judgment is that signatures of the defendant on paper No. 9 -C are proved. There is nothing to show that the statement of positive denial made by the defendant as to the receipt and service of notice and about his signatures was considered by the learned trial court. In the absence of any discussion and process of reasoning, the bald finding is clearly of no effect moreso, in the context of the case set up by the defendant and his statement on oath.