- (1.) Heard Sri Ajay Kumar Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri C.B. Pandey, learned Standing Counsel on behalf of the respondent No. 1. Factual matrix in respect to the controversy which is involved in the present case, in brief as submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner are that the respondent No. 2 (Smt. Prem Kumari) filed a suit (SCC Suit No. 1 of 2010) in the Court of Civil Judge, Small Causes/District, Lucknow. In the said suit, the petitioner before this Court is defendant, and on his behalf an application for local inspection has been moved numbered as paper No. 23/6 to which the respondent No. 2 filed his objections (paper No. 25-C).
(2.) On 9.7.2010 when the matter was taken up by the respondent No. 1 for disposal of the matter in question neither the Counsel for the defendant/respondent or the defendant was present to press the application nor there was any application on behalf of the Counsel or the defendant/defendant for adjournment of the case.
(3.) In view of the abovesaid facts, the Court below had proceeded to dispose of the application moved by the petitioner for issuance of the commission and the objections filed against the said application the respondent No. 2.;