FIRM KIRPA RAM GANESHI LAL Vs. VIJAY KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has been filed against the order of the learned Additional District Judge, No. 2, Sri Ganganagar dated January 21, 1989 by which he dismissed the application of the defendant petitions moved under Section 151 and Order 47, Rule 1, Code of Civil Procedure (here in after referred to as the 'Code') and Section 14(4), Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1958 (here in after referred to as the 'Act') and also application moved under Section 5, Limitation Act for reviewing the order dated December 9, 1985 striking out his defence and condoing the delay for depositing the amount of rent determined. The facts of the case giving rise to this petition may be summarised thus.

(2.) THE plaintiff non -petitioner instituted a suit against the defendant petitioner for his eviction on various grounds including the ground of default in payment of rent. On July 30, 1985, the learned Additional District Judge Provisionally determined the amount of Rs. 33, 105.13 as rent etc. It was not paid within fifteen days. An application for extension of time for payment was made by the defendant petitioner. By order dated September 2, 1985, two months time was further granted. The petitioner did not make payment even within the extended period, i.e. by October 14, 1985 On November 25, 1985 the petitioner again moved an application for extension of the time for the payment of the said amount After hearing both the parties, the trial court dismissed the application by its Order dated December 9, 1985, holding that time cannot be extended beyond three months in view of the express provisions of Sub -section (4) of Section 13 of the Act. By the same order, the petitioners defence against the eviction was struck out. An appeal against this order was filed in this Court. It was dismissed on January 30, 1986, D B. Civil Special Appeal No. 8/86 was filed by the defendant petitioner against this decision. It was also dismissed by a Division Bench on February 10, 1986. The judgement is reported in 1986 RLW 333 = 1986 RLR 236. The defendant petitioner also filed Special Leave Petition No. 4035/86 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It was dismissed on April 3, 1986. In the year 1988 the defendant petitioner moved an application under Section 151 and Order 47, Rule 1 of the Code and Section 13(4) of the Act for reviewing the earlier order dated December 9, 1985 by which the defence was struck out and another application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay for depositing the said amount of Rs 33,105 83. The plaintiff respondent seriously opposed both the applications. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, the trial court dismissed both the applications by its lengthy order dated January 30, 1989 which has been challenged in this revision petition.

(3.) IN reply it has been contended by the learned Counsel for the plaintiff non -petitioner that the provisions of Order 47, Rule 1 and Section 151, CPC are not applicable and the learned trial court has rightly dismissed the applications. He also contended that the order striking out the defence dated December 9, 1985 stood merged in the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and there was no question of its review after its merger. He relied upon 1984 WLN 324, 1967 RLW 548 and Deshraj v. Omprakash and Anr. 1983 (2) RLR 173.