- (1.) This writ petition is directed against the impugned order dated 27.9.2011 whereby an application of the petitioner for recalling the judgment and order dated 18.12.2009 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No. 2, Bulandshahr in Small Causes Case No. 9 of 2004, Smt. Saroj Singh and another v. Smt. Rajni Chauhan and another) has been dismissed. SCC Suit No. 9 of 2004 was filed by the landlord-Respondent No. 1 in March, 2004 against the petitioner for arrears of rent and ejectment. The said suit was decreed against the petitioner by judgment and order dated 18.12.2009. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said judgment and decree order dated 18.12.2009, the petitioner preferred a SCC Revision No. 19 of 2010 before this Court which was finally disposed of by judgment and order dated 19.1.2010. For ready reference, judgment and order dated 19.1.2010 passed by this Court in SCC Revision No. 19 of 2010 is quoted herein below: Heard Sri H.N. Singh, learned Counsel for the revisionists and Sri M.K. Gupta, learned Counsel for the respondents-landlord. This is a revision under section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act against the judgment and order dated 18.12.2009 passed by the Judge Small Causes Court/Additional District Judge, Court No. 2, Bulandshahar in Small Causes Case No. 9 of 2004, Smt. Saroj Singh and another v. Smt. Rajni Chauhan and another, whereby the suit filed by the respondents-landlord for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent has been allowed. After the matter was heard at quite some length, the parties have agreed to settle the same in the terms as stated hereunder: 1. The revisionist-tenants shall vacate the premises on or before 31.5.2010 and handover the vacant and peaceful possession to the respondents-landlord. 2. The revisionists-tenant shall pay the entire arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 7,000/- (seven thousand) per month from 1.5.2003 up to 31.12.2009 by 4th March, 2010. 3. The revisionists-tenants shall continue to pay the monthly rent at the rate of Rs. 7,000/- per month by 7th of the next succeeding month when it falls due, till he vacates the premises in question. The aforesaid conditions agreed by the parties shall be reduced in the form of an undertaking by the revisionists-tenant within 15 days from today and such undertaking should be filed by him before the Trial Court. In the event such undertaking is not filed, this order shall stand vacated and the decree shall become executable forthwith. It is also provided that in case any of the conditions contained in the undertaking are violated by the revisionists-tenant, the decree would become executable forthwith. This civil revision stands disposed of as above. The parties may bear their own costs.
(2.) The aforementioned order passed by this Court reveals that the matter was heard at length by this Court and with the consent of the parties, the revision was decided but the petitioner instead of complying with the order dated 19.1.2010 passed by this Court, in order to prolong the execution proceedings, filed an application for recalling the judgment and decree dated 18.12.2009, inter alia, on the ground that the said judgment was obtained through fraud, collusion and mis-representation. The said application was dismissed by the Court below by a detailed order dated 27.9.2011. Aggrieved with the said order, the present writ petition has been filed.
(3.) The matter was heard on 8.11.2011 and after perusing the record, this Court was of the tentative opinion that the present petition is nothing but an abuse of the process of the Court and liable, to be dismissed with exemplary cost, Thereupon the learned Counsel for the petitioner requested the Court on 8.11.2011 to place the matter for further consideration on the next date i.e., 9.11.2011. For ready reference, the order 8.11.2011 is quoted hereinbelow: After arguing the matter for sometime, learned Counsel for the petitioner prayed that this matter may be taken up tomorrow i.e., 9.11.2011. Mr. Neeraj Agarwal, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2 has stated that he has already filed caveat in the matter but the same has not been reported. Office is directed to trace it out and place it on record. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has served a copy of the writ petition upon Mr. Neeraj Agarwal, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2. Put up as fresh tomorrow i.e., 9.11.2011 showing the name of Mr. Neeraj Agarwal, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2.;