RAKESH TIWARI, J. - (1.) Heard Counsel for the parties and perused the record.
(2.) IT appears that Suit No. 139 of 1997 was filed by respondent No. 3 against the petitioner for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent before the Judge, Small Causes Court, Allahabad. In the aforesaid suit 22- 4-1999 was fixed for evidence of the petitioner-tenant. It is stated that when the case was called out, the Counsel for the petitioner in the Court below was on his legs in Court of IV Additional District Judge and this position was never informed by the petitioner through Reader of the Court below to the Presiding Officer. When the case was taken up again the petitioner who was present in the Court again informed the Court that the Counsel was now arguing before the Court of Special Judge and on his request the case was passed over. The petitioner stated that he thereafter went out to have a glass of water and in the mean time the case was called out and the evidence was ordered to be closed and the case was fixed for judgment. The Counsel for the petitioner moved an application on the same day i. e. 22-4- 1999 closing the evidence and for hearing for recalling the order dated 22-4-1999 which was rejected by order dated 28-4-1999. The order dated 28-4-1999 is as under: ...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMITTED]...The judgment was delivered on the same day. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 28-4-1999 the petitioner preferred Civil Revision No. 510 of 1999 before the Revisional Court. In para 3 of the memo of revision it has been stated that : ...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMITTED]... The revision was dismissed vide order dated 30-5-2001, hence this writ petition.
(3.) THE contention of the Counsel for the petitioner is that the Revisional Court has not considered the pleadings of the petitioner in para 3 of the memo of revision which was specifically argued bringing to the notice of the Revisional Court the circumstances under which the evidence of the petitioner was closed and he was deprived of the opportunity to lead evidence resulting in order from ex parte proceedings against which the revision was filed. It is stated that the Revisional Court without application of mind has mechanically up held the order of the trial Court dated 28-4-1999 vide order dated 30-5-2001. The Counsel for the respondents submits that both the Courts below have given a finding of fact on the basis of record that the amount deposited by the petitioner under Section 30 (1) (a) of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 was deficient and no evidence was required to prove this fact.;