MAHENDRA DAYAL,J. - (1.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the impugned order.
(2.) The revisionist who is the owner landlord of the disputed premises has filed this revision for setting aside the order dated 05.09.2017 along with formal order dated 08.09.2017 passed by the Special Judge C.B.I., Court No. 1/Additional District Judge in the miscellaneous case No. 0000528 of 2016.
(3.) The brief facts relevant for disposal of this revision, are that the revisionist filed a suit for ejectment and recovery of arrears of rent against the opposite party No. 1 on 15.04.2015 in which summons were issued to the opposite party No. 1. In the said suit, the opposite party No. 1 did not appear inspite of having knowledge of the proceedings. The suit proceeded ex parte against him and by the judgment and decree dated 23.01.2016, the opposite party No. 1 was held liable for ejectment. The revisionist sent a certified copy of the judgment through his counsel on 02.02.2016 which was received by the wife of the opposite party No. 2. When the opposite party No. 1 neither paid the arrears of rent nor vacated the premises, an execution case No. 112 of 2016 was filed and by the order dated 06.04.2016, the executing court passed the order for eviction with the help of police force. The opposite party No. 1 then preferred a delayed application under Order 9, Rule 13 CPC alleging wrong facts therein. This application has been allowed by the impugned order dated 05.09.2017.;