R.H.Zaidi,J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record. Present petition arises out of a suit for ejectment and recovery of rent and is directed against the judgment and order dated 29th May, 1996 passed by the trial Court decreeing the suit and the judgment and order dated 29th August, 1998 passed by the I Additional District Judge, Bareilly dismissing the revision filed by the petitioner.
(2.) It appears that respondent No.3 filed a suit for eviction of the petitioner from the building in question on the ground of default and sub-letting after service of notice of termination of the tenancy of the petitioner. It was pleaded that inspite of service of notice of demand and termination of tenancy, neither the amount of rent was paid not the building in question was vacated. The petitioner filed no written statement inspite of service of summons issued by the trial Court, therefore, the trial Court directed the suit to proceed ex parte against him. Subsequently, an application was made for setting aside the order to proceed ex parte, which was allowed on 11.1.1995 and time till 18.1.1995 was granted to file the written statement. Instead of filing the written statement, the petitioner filed an application on 18.1.1995 for adjournment of the hearing. On the said application, 21.1.1995 were fixed for filing the written staement and hearing. Even then, no written statement was filed. The trial Court again on 7.3.1995, granted time till 28.3.1995 to file the written statement failing which, order to proceed under Order VIII Rule 10, C.P.C., was passed. Even till 28.3.1995, no written statement was filed. The trial Court, thereafter, had no option but to proceed in accordance with the law. The plaintiff respondent produced the relevant evidence and proved his case. The trial Court after going through the material on the record, came to the conslusion that the case as pleaded by the plaintiff, was proved and decreed the suit ex parte by judgment and decree dated 29.5.1995. Challenging the validity of the said decree, no application under Order IX Rule 13, C.P.C., was filed but the said order was challenged under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act by filing S.C.C. Revision No.30 of 1995 before the Court below. The Court below after hearing the parties held as under :- "On considering the facts and circumstances it is well found that the defendant was given proper opportunity to produce the evidence but he did not afford (avail) that opportunity. It appears that the defendants had to bear a great loss due to carelessness and innocence of his, course. So far the findings of the learned lower court are concerned, they are on the basis of evidence, therefore, the findings of fact recorded by the learned lower court on the basis of evidence can not be disturbed by the revisional court. The order passed by the learned lower court was within its jurisdiction and no illegality or irregularity is seen. The record dearly shows that a delaying tactics was adopted from the defendant's side which may be either at the instance of the defendants or by his cousel on his accord but undue liberty can not be given to any party to prolong a case pending since long in the court of the plea of defendants is accepted one after another there would not be an end of litigation. In the instant case the plaintiff has successfully proved his case and his suit was rightly decreed by the learned lower Court. I do not see any reason to interfere the findings recorded by the learned lower court. In the circumstances this revision has no force and is liable to be dismissed with costs." Having recorded the aforesaid finding, the revision filed by the petitioner was dismissed on 27.8.1998, hence the present petition.
(3.) Learned counsel a'pearing for the petitioner vehemently urged that the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court was wholly illegal inasmuch as it failed to follow the procedure prescribed under the law and the suit was decreed wholly illegally. According to him, the revisional Court has also acted illegally in affirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon the case of Balraj Tanaja and another v. Sunil Madan and another.;