- (1.) Heard Sri Rameshwar Prasad Agarwal for the Petitioner and Sri Anupam Kulshrestha appearing for the contesting Respondent.
(2.) Undisputed facts are that the Plaintiff-Petitioner filed a suit seeking prohibitory permanent injunction to restrain the Defendant-Respondent not to evict him from the shop in dispute except in accordance with law. In response to the notice and summons, the Defendant-Respondent put in appearance and filed his written statement. After exchange of pleadings and framing of issues, the Defendant-Respondent absented on 15.9.1999 and an order to proceed ex parte against him was passed. Subsequently, an application dated 13.1.2006 was filed to recall the said order. The trial court vide order dated 9.1.2007 allowed the application and recalled the order dated 15.9.1999 to proceed ex parte on payment of Rs. 500 as costs. The Plaintiff-Petitioner went up in revision which has also been dismissed.
(3.) It has been urged by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that in the absence of any proper explanation for non-appearance on the previous dates, the Courts have wrongly and illegally allowed the application. It has further been submitted that in the absence of any finding about the existence of sufficient or good cause for absence, the orders passed by the courts below are vitiated and not liable to be sustained.;