BALVIR SINGH Vs. ANIL KUMAR JAIN AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard.

(2.) It is the petitioner's contention that the landlord-plaintiff had filed a suit for eviction and recovery of rent against the petitioner in the trial Court. Petitioner had engaged a counsel namely Shri Surendra Kumar Saxena before the trial Court in the Civil Suit which was instituted in the year 2008. In the original Civil Suit, written statement was filed and thereafter his counsel Shri Surendra Kumar Saxena had informed him that he is not required to appear before the Court regularly and as and when he will be required he will be called.

(3.) It is petitioner's further contention that the petitioner is a truck driver and is often required to stay out of Gwalior in connection with his occupation, therefore, on 14.02.2012 after returning from his work, the petitioner's neighbourers had informed him that certain persons from the Court had come to take possession of the accommodation in question and then the petitioner had contacted his counsel who had shown his ignorance about progress of the case and therefore he contacted another counsel Shri Santosh Sharma on 15.02.2012 through whom he had come to know that ex parte proceedings were drawn against the petitioner on 06.03.2010 in the original suit and thereafter on 30.03.2010 ex parte judgment and decree has been passed by the trial Court. It is the petitioner's contention that since the counsel had informed him that he is not required to appear before the Court and therefore he was waiting for intimation from his counsel and when it was not received till 14.02.2012 and he was informed by his neighbourers about the Court's judgment and decree, he had approached the Court.