- (1.) THIS writ petition is being heard by the consent of the parties at the admis sion stage finally.
(2.) BY means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the judgment and decree dated 29-9-2006 passed by S. C. C. Suit No. 3 of 1997 Swami Shukdevanand Trust and another Vs. Dinesh Chandra Paliwal and judgment and order dated 13-2-2007 passed by the District Judge Haridwar in S. C. C. Revision No. 10 of 2006 Dinesh Chandra Paliwal Vs. Swami Shukdevanand Trust and another and its consequential execution proceed ings. Relevant facts of the case are that the S. C. C. Suit No. 3 of 1997 was filed by the respondent-plaintiffs against the petitioner-defendant for arrears of rent and eviction after terminating the tenancy of the defendants vide notice dated 2-12-1996. The petitioner con tested the suit and dented the allegation that he was defaulter in payment of rent. It was also denied that the Chari table trust was owner of the property and therefore, the property did not fall under the purview of Section 2 (l) (bb) of the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 and that the S. C. C. suit was not maintainable. It was alleged that the petitioner was tenant of the trust and the registered society and there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between them. The parties led evidence before the trial court. Ultimately, the Judge Small Cause Court passed a decree of mesne profit and eviction against the petitioner vide judgment and decree dated 29- 9-2006. Aggrieved, the petitioner preferred a re vision against the judgment and decree before the District Judge Pauri Garhwal which was registered as S. C. C. Revision No. 10 of 2006 Dinesh Chandra Paliwal Vs. Swami Sukhdevanand Trust Parmarth Niketan. The petitioner moved a transfer application before the High Court which was registered as Transfer Application No. 18 of 2006 and this Court passed an interim order dated 4-11-2006 to the effect that the proceed ings of the revision shall remain till the next date of listing. On presentation of the interim order before the District Judge, the matter was adjourned to 20-3-2007. The transfer application of the petitioner was allowed and the revision was transferred to the Court of the Dis trict Judge Haridwar vide order dated 18-12-2006 passed by this Court. The District Judge Pauri Garhwal appointed special messenger for transmission of record to the District Judge Haridwar vide order dated 22-12-2006 through Advocate Commissioner. The record was received in the court of District Judge Haridwar on 23-12-2006 who ordered issue of notice to both the parties fixing the date 2-1-2007. On 2-1,2007, peti tioner's counsel Sri Vipin Goel informed the court that he had no instruction from the petitioner. The court then or dered for issue of notice to the revision ist-petitioner fixed 15-1-2007. On that day, the counsel for the revisionist moved an application before the court that he could not inform the revisionist of trite date fixed and the revisionist had also not contacted him, therefore, he requested the court to adjourn the mat ter with a request to effect service of no tice upon the revisionist. The District Judge adjourned the case to 13-2-2007 on the ground that both the parties' counsel agreed to argue the revision on the date fixed. It was also noted in the order if the revision is not argued on that date, the revision shall be decided on merit. However, on 12- 2-2007 the coun sel for the revisionist moved an applica tion for permission to withdraw his power on behalf of the revisionist. The application was ordered to be put on the date fixed, i. e. 13-2-2007. The revision ist had not appeared before the Court on 13-2-2007 and the District Judge dis missed the revision on merit after hear ing the learned counsel for the opposite party. Aggrieved by the said order, the revisionist has come up in the present writ petition. The main contention of petitioner is that the District Judge Hardwar has illegally passed the impugned order with out service of notice upon him after the learned counsel for the revisionist had applied for withdrawal of his Vakalatnama.
(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Arvind Vashist as well as Sri Alok Singh, Senior Advocate, as sisted by Sri D. Barthwal appearing for the respondents and perused the record. The petitioner is also present in person before the Court today. From a bare perusal of the events narrated above after the transfer of the revision to the Court of District Judge, Hardwar, it is very much clear that the counsel for the petitioner Sri Vipin Goel has made a statement in the court on 2-1-2007 that he had no in struction from the revisionist and once the District Judge had ordered for issue of notice to the revisionist-petitioner on 2-1-2007 fixing 15-1-2007, it was for the court to have examined whether the notice was sufficiently served upon the party. The order-sheet dated 13-2-2007 of the court of the District Judge Hardwar also shows that the counsel for the revisionist informed the court that he had no instruction from the revisionist and he wants to withdraw his Vakalatnama. However, the District Judge has made an observation in the order-sheet that the revisionist has infor mation of the date fixed in the case and deliberately, the revisionist was not ap pearing before the court to linger on the proceedings. Learned counsel for the pe titioner has hammered the observation made by the District Judge that the re visionist had full knowledge of the date fixed without ensuring service of notice upon the revisionist and the District Judge proceeded to decide the revision in the absence of the revisionist, which is against the principle of natural justice. The learned counsel has therefore urged that the revisionist had been denied rea sonable opportunity to press his revision, therefore, the impugned order is liable to set aside. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner has some force.;