RAM BAHADUR AND ANR. Vs. IIIRD ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND ANR.
LAWS(ALL)-2004-11-284
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on November 02,2004

Ram Bahadur And Anr. Appellant
VERSUS
Iiird Additional District Judge And Anr. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Vikram Nath, J. - (1.) THIS petition has been filed for quashing the judgment dated 27.04.1987 passed by IIIrd Additional District Judge, Varanasi in S.C.C. Revision No. 94 of 1985 Ram Surat v. Ram Bahadur and others whereby the revision has been allowed and the matter has been remitted to the Trial Court for deciding the issue relating to the striking off the defence under Order 15, Rule 5 of C.P.C. afresh. Facts of the case are that the petitioner is the landlord of the premises in dispute being House No. 8/313 Khajuri District Varanasi. The respondent No. 2 was a tenant of one Kachcha southern outer room of the said house on monthly rent of Rs. 10/ -. On default being committed by the tenant suit for arrears of rent and ejectment was filed which was registered as S.C.C. Suit No. 407 of 1980 Ram Bahadur and another v. Ram Surat. In the said suit the landlord plaintiff took a plea that the defence of the tenant defendant should be struck off under Order 15, Rule 5 of C.P.C. as the deposit required had not been made. The said application was contested by the tenant therein. The Trial Court vide order dated 24.11.1983 allowed the application of the plaintiff and struck off the defence of the tenant defendant.
(2.) THE tenant filed a revision against the said order which was registered as Civil Revision No. 372 of 1983, which was dismissed by the IIIrd Additional District Judge, Varanasi vide judgment dated 27.11.1994, thereby the Revisional Court affirmed the order of the Trial Court dated 24.11.1983. In paragraph 10 of the writ petition it has been stated that judgment dated 27.11.1994 was not challenged and it became final and binding between the parties. Thereafter, the suit of the landlord was decreed vide judgment dated 12.02.1985 (Annexure -2 to the petition). Against the said judgment and decree S.C.C. Revision No. 94 of 1985 was filed by the tenant. This revision was allowed and the matter has been remanded to the Trial Court for fresh decision on the issue relating to the striking off defence under Order 15, Rule 5 of C.P.C. It is against this order that the present writ petition has been filed.
(3.) I have heard Shri Namwar Singh learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.