- (1.) The present second appeal has been filed by the defendant-tenant Gwal Das s/o Dev Das Swami under Section 100 CPC against Smt. Goma Devi w/o Surajmal Swami being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the first appellate court of learned Addl. District Judge, Bikaner dated 15/11/1995 in Civil Appeal No. 100/85 (Gwal Das vs. Goma Devi) by which the learned appellate court affirmed the decree of eviction granted by the learned trial court of Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, Bikaner on 9/3/1979 in Civil Suit No. 129/1978 (Goma Devi vs. Gwal Das), on the ground of bonafide need of the landlady.
(2.) The said eviction decree was passed ex-parte by the learned trial court since the defendant tenant, Gwal Das, did not appear before the learned trial court and furnish any written statement nor he appeared in the witness box to defend the eviction suit. However, an application was filed by him under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC soon after the decree for eviction for setting aside the ex-parte decree on 3.4.1979 which came to be rejected by the learned trial court after five years on 19/9/1984. The appeal filed by Gwal Das against that was also rejected by the learned appellate court of Addl. District Judge, Bikaner on 14/10/1992 against which a revision petition being S.B.Civil Revision Petition No. 16/1993 was filed by the defendant Gwal Das before this Court, which is stated to be still pending before this Court in which while admitting the said revision petition, an exparte stay order to the effect that petitioner shall not be evicted from the suit premises was passed on 11.1.1993. Learned counsel for the appellant-defendant-tenant, Mr. L.R.Mehta & Mr. Sajjan Singh submitted that the said ex-parte stay order dated 11/1/1993 was confirmed also till disposal of the revision petition on 27/9/1996.
(3.) During the pendency of the said revision petition against the concurrent orders of trial court and appellate court rejecting the application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC of tenant Gwal Das for setting the ex-parte eviction decree dated 9/3/1979 on the ground that the defendant-tenant acknowledged the receipt of registered AD Post, in which summons of the court were sent to the defendant tenant, Gwal Das by his signatures in Hindi, whereas, it was contended in the application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC by the defendant tenant that he usually signs in English as was done by him on the said application itself and also on the Vakalatnama.;