- (1.) R. H. Zaidi, J. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) BY means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner prays for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 20-7-1998 whereby the "suit filed by the respon dent No. 3 for ejectment and recovery of arrears of rent was decreed ex-pane by the trial Court, the order dated 25-10-1999 whereby the application under Order IX, Rule 13', C. P. C. was dismissed by the respon dent No. 2 and the order dated 10-8- 2 (XX) whereby the revision filed by the petitioner against the order dated 25-10-1999 has been dismissed by the Revisional Court. It appears that the respondent No. 3 filed a suit for ejectment and recovery of arrears of rent against the petitioner. The said suit was contested by the petitioner. However, he has failed to comply with the provisions of Order XV, Rule'5, C. P. C. consequently, the defence of the petitioner was struck off by the order dated 23-9-1977. Challenging the validity of the said order, a revision was filed before the Revisional Court, which was also dis missed on 20-7-1979. Aggrieved by the orders passed by the Courts below," Writ Petition No. 7279 of 1979 was filed by the petitioner, which was ultimately allowed by this Court by judgment and order dated 12-8-1980. Thereafter, it has been stated that the case was transferred from Hapur to Ghaziabad as Hapur subsequently came under the territorial jurisdiction of Dis trict Court, Ghaziabad. It has been alleged that the petitioner had no knowledge about the pendency of the suit in the Court of respondent No 2. The said suit was ultimately decreed ex-parte by judgment and decree dated 14-7-1998. The petitioner as soon as he carne to know about the said decree, filed an application for settling the ex-parte decree on 12-7-1999 under Order IX Rule 13 C. P. C. The said application in was objected to and opposed by the contesting respondent No. 3, pleading that the petitioner had full knowledge of the pendency of the suit at Ghaziabad, but he deliberately absented from the Court with a view to delay the disposal of the suit, therefore, the application tiled by the petitioner was liable to be dismissed. The said application was ultimately dismissed by the respondent No. 2 by judgment and order dated 25-10-1999. Aggrieved by the said order, a revision was filed by the petitioner before the Court below. The Court below also affirmed the findings recorded by the trial Court and dismissed the revision by its judgment and order dated 10-8-2000, hence, the present petition. Learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently urged that the petitioner had no knowledge of the pendency of the suit in the Court of respondent No. 2. The Courts below have acted illegally in dismissing the application for setting aside the ex-' pane decree as well as the revision filed by the petitioner. The judgments and orders passed by the Courts below, therefore, were liable to be set aside.
(3.) ON the other hand, learned Coun sel appearing for the contesting respon dent supported the validity of the im pugned decree and orders. It was urged that the Courts below have recorded con current findings of fact that the petitioner had full knowledge of the pendency of the suit in the Court of respondent No. 2. The said findings are based on relevant evidence on record, therefore, the writ petition was liable to be dismissed. I have considered the submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties and also perused the record.;