TIRATH RAM Vs. TRILOKI NATH RAZDAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner-defendant has filed this Civil Revision questioning Sub-Judge, Jammu's order dated 21.10.2008 whereby his defence was struck off, besides order dated 3.2.2010 whereby review of the above order was declined.

(2.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as also the respondent appearing in person and considered their submissions.

(3.) There appears merit in the respondent's contention that petitioner's revision against the orders questioned in the Revision may not be maintainable in view of the provisions of the proviso appended to Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1997 (1920 A.D). However, the order whereby the petitioner's defence was struck off on the ground that his absence and non-production of evidence was deliberate and intentional and that he had not paid the costs for adjournment of the case on earlier occasions, appears harsh and is likely to result in failure of justice, for, the other options available to the Court under Order 17 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure for proceeding against the defendant for his default in terms of Order 17 Rule 3 (a) or under Order 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, do not appear to have been considered for resort thereto; particularly when the Suit was at its fag end. While considering the harsh effect of the trial Court's order that had been passed without considering the other options available to the Court under Order 17 Rule 3 of the Code, it cannot be lost sight of that justice has eluded the parties despite there being in litigation for over a period of eleven years. The respondent's Suit for petitioner's eviction from House No. 842, Subash Nagar, Jammu and recovery of arrears of rent payable from April 1996 onwards, filed in the year 2001, has not yet attained finality in the trial Court.