SHAIKH NABAB SHAIKH ABDUL Vs. BABULAL @ BHIKARIKHA IBRAHIM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff in R.C.S.No.407/1987, has challenged the order of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Bhusawal, dt.27.11.2001 whereby, by saddling costs of Rs.1,000/-, the decree in the said suit was set aside.

(2.) I have heard both the Counsels at length. The plaintiff is the landlord while the defendant is the tenant in the suit premises. The suit was for possession of a room at the northern gate of the premises owned by the plaintiff. The defendant was duly served. He appeared through his Advocate but failed to file written statement. Consequently, the learned Judge passed order to proceed without written statement, in August, 1991. On 6th March, 1993, the suit came to be decreed. Having clamped with the decree, the plaintiff, as legitimately was entitled, moved Regular Darkhast No.58/1993 and, thereafter, the present respondent ( defendant) filed application No.15/1994, before the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Bhusaval, on 13.4.1994, taking recourse to Order 9 Rule 13 of C.P.C., whereby sought setting aside the decree referred above.

(3.) Before the Judge, the evidence in support of the application and opposing the application was adduced. The plaintiff claimed that, on all the dates, in the matter before the Civil Judge, Junior Division, the defendant used to attend and, even the defendant has his shop infront of the plaintiff's premises, where he is engaged in the business activities and, consequently, it was canvassed by the plaintiff that, the defendant was not required to move away for business purposes.