A.N. Dikshita, J. - (1.) THIS revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 9.11989 passed by Sri V.K. Khare IX Additional District Judge, Kanpur in Miscellaneous Case titled as State of U.P. and another v. Sunil Kumar Bajpai and another. No. 65/74 of 1988 The fact encompassing in the controversy are that the opposite parties Sunil Kumar Bajpai and Akhil Kumar Bajpai both sons of late Sri Kailash Nath Bajpai, hereinafter called 'opposite parties' filed a suit in the Court of District Judge, Kanpur against the State of U.P. through Collector, Kanpur and Additional District Magistrate (Rationing), Kanpur, hereinafter called 'applicants' claiming a decree of ejectment from the suit premises on the ground of default and also claiming damages at the rate of Rs. 645/ - from 29.10.1986 till the date of eviction of the applicants besides pendente lite and future mesne profits and water tax etc. in the court of District Judge, Kanpur which was registered as Small Causes Court suit No. 65 of 1987.
(2.) ON 14.5.1987 District Judge alter report of the Munsarim ordered for issue of summonses fixing 10.7.1987 for filing of the written statement. On 10.7.1987 District Judge found the defendants to have been served personally and in view of the fact that no written statement had been filed ordered that the suit be put up for disposal on 19.8.1987. On 19.8.1987 as Presiding Officer (District Judge) was on leave, 25.8.1987 was fixed for the hearing. Again on 25.8.1987 plaintiffs were represented but none was present for the defendant nor any written statement was filed and as such the District Judge ordered the case to proceed ex parte fixing 9.9.1987 for ex parte hearing. On 9.9.1987 District Judge ordered the case to be transferred to the court of IXth Additional District Judge, and fixed 11.9.1987 for the presence of the parties. On 10.9.1989 the records were received by IXth Additional District Judge. It was directed to be registered and put on the date fixed.
(3.) INCIDENTALLY it may be mentioned here that there are no signature of the IXth Additional District Judge on the order sheet. It may not be out of place to mention here that once there was no signature of the IXth Additional District Judge on the order sheet dated 10.9.1987 it was wholly illegal to have ordered the case to be put up on 11.91987.;