MANGILAL Vs. MAHESH CHAND PUROHIT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision petition has been filed against order dated 7-5-99, whereby the learned Additional District Judge, No. 4, Jaipur City dismissed the petitioner's First Appeal No. 34/98 for the reasons of having not deposited costs of Rs. 200/- as directed by appellate Court on 26-3-99 when appeal was adjourned to 19-4-99 for final disposal.

(2.) The facts relevant for disposal of this petition briefly stated are that the plaintiff (respondent) filed a suit of eviction (No. 739/93, 122/81) on the ground of default in payment of rent, under the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 which was decreed by the Civil Judge (JD), Jaipur City (West) under Judgment dated 3-4-98, which was challenged by the defendant (petitioner) in aforesaid First Appeal. The said first appeal was listed for final disposal on 26-3-99 when adjournment was sought on behalf of the counsel for the petitioner (appellant) on the ground of the arguing counsel having been out of station. The appellate Court adjourned the appeal to 19-4-99 for final disposal subject to the payment of costs of Rs. 200/-. It is the case of the petitioner that the cost could not be deposited on 19-4-99 because on that date there was Advocates' strike on the call by the Bar Council of Rajasthan for protesting imposition of professional tax and the aforesaid appeal was adjourned to 7-5-99. On 7-5-99 the appellate Court dismissed the petitioner's first appeal as the costs of Rs. 200/- was not deposited.

(3.) During the course of arguments, Mr. B. K. Sharma, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that on 7-5-99 the Advocate for the petitioner moved an application under Order 41, Rule 7, CPC for amendment in appeal and while the said application was being submitted, it was prayed before the appellate Court that costs would be deposited as soon as the petitioner appellant comes on that very date, but the appellate Court refused to accept the aforesaid prayer and it dismissed the appeal itself for want of costs being deposited. The learned counsel also contended that soon thereafter the petitioner (appellant) himself appeared on 7-5-99 before the Court and submitted an application expressing willingness to deposit cost of Rs. 200/- but no orders were passed by the Court on that application. According to the learned counsel, the impugned order being without jurisdiction is not sustainable and liable to be quashed because grave injustice has been caused to the petitioner for the circumstances beyond his control viz. that since there was Advocates' strike, referred to above, he was prevented by sufficient cause from appearing before the appellate Court for depositing costs, which was neither deliberate nor intentional.