- (1.) B. K. Rathi, J. Heard Sri S. C. Verma, learned Counsel for the appellant and Sri C. B. Yadav, learned Counsel for the respondents.
(2.) THE appellant filed suit for injunction to restrain the respondents from dispossessing the appellant from the house in dispute forcibly except in accordance with law. THE respondents did not appear in the trial Court and the suit proceeded ex parte but was dismissed. Against that order, the appeal filed by the appellant has also been dismissed. THEre is finding that the appellant is not tenant of the disputed house. It is contended that no written statement was filed. Therefore, the trial Court should have decreed the suit under Order VIII, Rule 10 C. P. C. and order, Order 15 Rule 1 C. P. C. In this case, the defendants did not appear before the trial Court in spite of the service of notice. Therefore, the Order VIII Rule 10 C. P. C. and Order XV Rule 1 C. P. C. will not apply. On the other hand, Order IX Rule 6 C. P. C. will apply and the suit has been decided under Order IX Rule 6 C. P. C. and was dismissed as the appellant could not prove the claim.
(3.) THEREFORE, the argument of the learned Counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted. In any case. Order VIII Rule 10 C. P. C. and Order XV Rule 1 C. P. C. does not provide that the suit should be decreed when no written statement is filed. There are concurrent finding of fact that the appellant is not he tenant of the disputed house. No substantial question of law is involved in this case. The appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed. .;