JAGJIT KHORANA Vs. RAJ KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 08 -11 -2001 passed by the learned IInd Additional District Judge, Jammu in File No. 46 -A Appeal, rejecting the appeal of the present petitioner against the judgment and order dated 16 -01 -2001 passed by learned Sub -Registrar, Munsiff, Jammu, refusing to set -aside the exparte decree passed against the petitioner.

(2.) BRIEFLY stating the facts as emerge from the record, are that; The petitioner was a tenant of Smt. Krishana Kumari Widow of late Sh. Amar Nath. Satya Devi, Raj Kumari and Kamla Devi daughters of late Sh. Amar Nath in the premises comprising of one shop and building constructed on four shops on the first floor situate at Mohalla Partap Garh, Jammu. There appears to be a dispute of non -payment of rent for which the petitioner claims to have deposited the rent before the Rent Controller. However, these facts are not relevant for the disposal of present revision petition.

(3.) IN so far as the controversy in the present revision is concerned, it released to setting aside of ex -parte decree passed against the petitioner on 18 -11 -1996 in an eviction suit filed by the respondent in the Court of learned Sub -Registrar Munsiff, Jammu. The suit was instituted on 2nd of September, 1995 which resulted in passing of the exparte decree on 18 -11 -1996. On acquiring the knowledge of the exparte decree the present petitioner preferred an application under Order -9 Rule - - 13 CPC for setting aside the ex -parte decree on 22 -08 -1997. This application came to be registered as file No. 149/Misc. The trial Court after inviting objections from the respondent, allowing the parties to lead evidence and bearing, rejected the application for setting of the ex -parte decree vide its order date 16 -01 -2001. An appeal preferred there from before the learned IInd Additional District Judge, Jammu also failed having been dismissed vide order dated 08 -11 -2001. It is under aforesaid circumstances, the petitioner has come to this Court by invoking revisional jurisdiction for setting aside the aforesaid orders.