BALIRAM PRASAD GUPTA Vs. MD ISA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision under Section 115 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Article 227 of the Constitution is directed against the order passed on 28.2.2003 and 21.3.2003 by Civil Judge (Jr. Division) No. 2 at Tinsukia in Title Suit No. 3/2002, renumbered as T.S. 2 of 2002. Heard Mr. D. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A.K. Goswami, learned counsel for the opposite party/plaintiff.

(2.) The facts in brief are that the opposite party plaintiff Md. Isa instituted the above mentioned Title Suit stating, interalia, that the suit land and premises belongs to the plaintiff and the present petitioner defendant was a tenant but the tenant has refused to pay the monthly rent on time and thus has become a defaulter and the defendant is also making some additional or alteration to the suit premises without the consent of the owner. The plaintiff therefore prayed for a decree for recovery of vacant Khas possession, eviction of the defendant and recovery of the arrear rent etc. and permanent injunction.

(3.) The present petitioner defendant put his appearance and prayed for time to file the written statement on 14.6.2002 and thereafter he prayed for time to file written statement from time to time and on 16.11.2002 also the petitioner prayed for time but the prayer was rejected. Thereafter on 6.12.2002 the plaintiff's evidence was recorded and thereafter the defendant was allowed to cross-examine the plaintiff. On . 14.2.2003 the defendant filed his written statement and prayed for acceptance of the same. The trial court vide the impugned order dated 28.2.2003 refused to accept the prayer of acceptance of the written statement and documents filed by him. However, it allowed the petitioner to cross-examine the plaintiff on the next date. Vide the impugned order dated 21.3.2003 the Court allowed the defendant to adduce evidence and make arguments when the defendant declined to cross examine the plaintiff. In this revision petition the petitioner has prayed for setting aside the impugned order and direction for acceptance of the written statement and documents. Shri D.Das, learned counsel for the petitioner defendant was fair enough to submit that there was no doubt certain lapses on the part of the defendant to prosecute his case before the trial court for the ends of justice the petitioner's written statement may be allowed to be accepted and he may be allowed to contest the proceeding.