- (1.) This revision, under S.25, Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, against an order dated 22-7-1985, of the IIIrd Additional District Judge, Lucknow, exercising powers of the Judge, Small Causes, has been opposed at the stage of admission and the learned counsel for the parties have been heard in detail on merits.
(2.) Small Cause Court Suit No. 33 of 1977 was filed by opposite party 3, Raj Kishore Rastogi, against the revisionist Mahabir Prasad Jain, his wife opposite party 1, his son opposite party 2, and other opposite parlies for ejectment from a house and for recovery of arrears of rent. The suit was contested. Parties had led all their evidence; only the present revisionist Mahabir Prasad Jain was to be examined as a witness for the defendants. On 28-5-1981, an application for adjournment on the ground of the revisionist's inability to be present having been rejected, the suit was decreed by the Judge Small Cause Court on 29-5-1981. Civil Revision No. 78 of 1981 was filed by the defendants who had applied for adjournment, but their prayer was refused. Civil Revision No. 111 of 1981 was filed by the present revisionist whose evidence could not be recorded. The two revisions were heard and decided by Hon'ble K. S. Varma, J. by judgment dated 26-4-1983 - copy, Annexure 2, to the counter-affidavit in this revision. The relevant portion of the order of this Court runs as follows :- "For the reasons stated, above, both the revision applications are allowed. The decree passed by the trial Court on 29-5-1981 is set aside and S.C.C. Suit No. 33 of 1977 is restored to its original number. The suit shall stand restored only on the following conditions :- (1) That defendant 1 pay to the plaintiff or his counsel a sum of Rs. 750/- on any date before 16-5-1983. . (2) If the payment is made in the manner indicated above the trial court on 16-5-83 permit defendant 1 Mahabir Prasad Jain to examine himself and after the cross-examination of Mahabir Prasad Jain no further evidence shall be led by any of the parties. (3) On 16-5-83 the case shall not be adjourned at the request of any of the parties. (4) The trial Court shall decide the case by 26th May, 1983 on the oral and documentary evidence already on record and on the evidence of Mahabir Prasad Jain. (5) The dates referred to above have been fixed in the presence of the parties." (Emphasis added). The revisionist Mahabir Prasad Jain, who was defendant 1 in the case, was expected to pay Rs. 750/- to the plaintiff (Raj Kishore Rastogi Opposite Party 3) or his counsel on any date before 16-5-1983. The revisionist's case is that he offered the sum to the plaintiff on 13-5-1983, but the plaintiff refused to accept the amount. The courts were closed on 14-5-1983 and 15-5-1983 on account of the holidays Second Saturday and Sunday. On 16-5-1983 the revisionist filed an application before the lower Court for permission to deposit the amount in Court. The application was opposed by plaintiff-opposite party 3. The Court below rejected the revisionist's application and allowed the plaintiffs objection by the impugned order dated 22-7-1985.
(3.) Sri Pradeep Kant Advocate has appeared on behalf of the revisionist. His contention is that since the Courts were closed on 14th and 15th of May, 1983, the defendant-revisionist was entitled, in law, to deposit the amount in Court on 16-5-1983. He next contends that since on 13-5-83 the plaintiff had refused to accept the amount, offered to him by the revisionist, he was entitled to deposit the amount in Court. In this connection it is also complained that the lower Court did not give an opportunity to the revisionist to adduce evidence to prove the refusal of the offer of the amount by the plaintiff-opposite party 3 made by the revisionist.;