Krishna Murari, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri R.K. Pandey, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri V.K. Singh, learned Counsel appearing for respondent. By means of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 1.12.2006 dismissing the revision filed by the petitioner in default as well as order dated 12.3.2007 dismissing the application to recall the said order.
(2.) FACTS are that J.S.C.C. Suit No. 34 of 1990 filed by plaintiff -respondent for arrears of rent and ejectment of the petitioner from the accommodation in question was decreed by the Trial Court vide order dated 7.8.2004, against which, the petitioner preferred a revision before the District Judge, Allahabad. The said revision came to be dismissed in default vide order dated 1.12.2006. Application dated 5/6.12.2006 to recall the order dated 1.12.2006 was also dismissed on 13.3.2007. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court. Recall application was filed by the petitioner on the ground that revision filed by him was pending in the Court of 17th Additional District Judge, Allahabad from where it was transferred to the Court of 2nd Additional District Judge, Allahabad without any notice or knowledge to him and when the petitioner went to attend the Court on 1.12.2006 he found that the Court was vacant as such he came back after requesting his Counsel to find out the date fixed. He was informed by his Counsel in the evening on 1.12.2006 that the case was transferred to the Court of 2nd Additional District Judge where it has been dismissed in default. Revisional Court dismissed the restoration application only on the ground that during the pendency of the proceedings before the 2nd Additional District Judge an adjournment application was filed by the contesting respondent which was served on the Counsel appearing for the petitioner in revision and he made an endorsement of 'no objection' thereon and thus he had full knowledge of transfer of the case and pendency of the proceedings before the 2nd Additional District Judge. The Revisional Court has further recorded a finding that the proceedings have been pending over the last fourteen years and the revision got dismissed in order to delay the disposal.
(3.) IT has been urged by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the averments made in the rejoinder affidavit, based on the information given by his Counsel, that endorsement of 'not opposed' was made by him on the adjournment application in good faith because of the personal ground of the Counsel without noticing the Court where the application was to be moved and the said mistake was unintentional and bona fide, have not at all been considered by the Revisional Court while dismissing the restoration application.;