- (1.) A. K. Yog, J. Heard Ms. Rama Goel, Advocate, learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Counsel for Caveator- Applicant Ravi Kant Srivastava.
(2.) THE present petition has been filed against the impugned judgment and order dated 21-9-2001 (Annexure-9 to the writ petition) by means of which tenant's appeal under Section 22 of the Act dismissed in default. Petitioner filed a restoration application on the same day i. e. , on 21-9-2001 copy of which has been annexed as Annexure No. 10 to the writ petition. The contesting landlord-respondent filed objection (Annexure- 10 to the writ petition ). The appellate Court Respondent No. 1 has dismissed the restoration application videits judgment and order dated 19-12-2001 (Annexure-12 to the writ petition ). It is not disputed that restoration application was filed on the same day.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submitted that perusal of the impugned order itself shows that the Court below was unduly swayed by the certain circumstances in the past and, according to the petitioner, Appellate Court was not correct in its approach inasmuch as restoration application in hand ought to have decided on merit without taking into account the extraneous consideration like the conduct of the petitioner in the past on some date. The ground taken in the restoration application is that petitioner had gone to call his Counsel and before he and his Counsel could come back the case was dismissed in default.;