DEEPA SHARMA Vs. NAVNEET RAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two civil revision petitions are filed questioning the orders, dated 30.06.2015, passed in I.A.Nos.173 and 174 of 2015 in O.S.No.69 of 2010, by the IV Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

(2.) The suit O.S.No.69 of 2010 is filed for eviction and for recovery of arrears of rents and future mesne profits. In that suit, I.A.No.916 of 2014 was filed for striking off the defence of the defendant for his failure to deposit rents as per the earlier order of the trial court. As the tenant did not deposit the rents, an application filed under Order 15A Civil P.C. was allowed and the defence of the defendant was struck off in the suit proceedings. It is also noticed that prior to this, an application bearing I.A.No.1246 of 2010 was filed for deposit of rents and the same was allowed. Against the said order, the tenant preferred a revision bearing CRP No.4299 of 2011, which was also dismissed on merits. No further appeal or revision was filed against the order in I.A.No.916 of 2014. Therefore, the striking off the defence of the defendant has become final. After the striking off of the defence of the defendant, PWs 1 and 2 were examined. The tenant failed to cross examine the witnesses. This right to cross-examine was forfeited. The tenant then filed two applications, i.e., I.A.Nos.173 and 174 of 2015, to reopen the evidence and to recall PWs 1 and 2 for the purpose of cross examination. These two applications were allowed. Questioning the orders passed in these applications, both these revision petitions have been filed.

(3.) Despite notice, the respondent/defendant did not appear. This court has heard Sri Ch.Ravinder, learned counsel for the petitioner. As the revision raises an important question of the participation of a party in the further proceedings after his defence has been struck off; this court requested the learned counsel to argue further on that aspect also apart from the grounds raised in the revision.