- (1.) PRAKASH Krishna, J. This is plaintiff's appeal from order of the First Additional District Judge, Aligarh dated 13th of May, 1994 in civil appeal No. 45 of 1987 whereby the Court below allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court and remanded the matter to the trial Court for fresh decision.
(2.) THE suit No. 262 of 1981 was instituted by the present appellants against the defendant respondent on the pleas inter alia that the defendant is the tenant of the disputed land of which the plaintiffs are owners and landlord, on a monthly rent of Rs. 180/ -. THE defendant failed to pay the rent after 20th of June 1977 and sublet a portion of it to defendant No. 3. THE tenancy was terminated through a notice, which was served on 10th of January 1981 and the suit was filed for recovery of arrears of rent, damages and ejectment of the defendants. The defendant No. 1, contested the suit denying the ownership and landlord ship of the plaintiff over the disputed land. He came out with the case that the disputed property was trust property in respect of which a litigation is already going on. Issues were framed and the suit was posted for recording evidence. Due to dialectic tactics adopted by the defendant tenant, after recording of the evidence, the evidence of the defendant was closed as he failed to participate in the proceedings in spite of due notice. His action to stall the further proceedings of the suit went in vain. The defendant tenant also in his design to delay the disposal of the suit, filed transfer application for transferring the case to another Court on the pretext that he was a poor man and was not able to engage a Counsel at his own expenses, therefore, free legal services may be provided to him through Legal Aid Board. The transfer application was rejected as it was not a bona fide one. The conduct of the defendant tenant has been noticed in detail by the Court below in its order and it is not necessary to reproduce them. The fact remains that ultimately the suit was decreed ex parte. An application to set aside the ex parte decree filed by the defendant tenant. The said application was rejected and the order rejecting the application filed under Order IX, Rule 13 C. P. C. was confirmed in appeal.
(3.) THE defendant tenant simultaneously also filed a regular appeal against the judgment and decree dated 4-12-1986 of the trial Court decreeing the suit for ejectment and recovery of arrears of rent etc. This was numbered as Civil Appeal No. 45 of 1987. The Court below by the order under appeal has allowed the aforestated appeal and set aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court. Aggrieved against the aforesaid judgment and decree the present appeal is at the instance of the plaintiff.;