A.K.SINGH,J. - (1.) HEARD the learned Counsels for the parties.
(2.) THIS appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code is directed against the judgment and decree dated 10th April, 96 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sojat (camp Jaitaran) in appeal against decree No. 20/95 Dev Kumar v. Janwat Raj. By the impugned judgment and decree, the learned Additional District Judge, Sojat remanded the case to the trial court with the direction that the defendant be given opportunity to lead his evidence on issues Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11 and 12. It appears that the appellants Janwat Raj and Manak Raj filed the civil suit No. 6/92 Janwat Raj v. Dev Kumar in the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Jaitaran for eviction and arrears of rent. The suit was contested by the respondent -defendant on several grounds. As many as 13 issues were framed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division). During the trial provisional rent was determined by the trial court under Sub -section (3) of Section 13. The provisional rent was however not deposited within the prescribed period. Consequently, the defence of the defendant -respondent against eviction was struck off. After recording the statement of the defendant, it was urged before the learned trial Judge that since defence of the defendant had been struck off, the defendant could not be permitted to produce any evidence in respect of any issue. The learned trial Judge on 24the May, 95 made an order to the effect that since the defence of the defendant had been struck off, he was not entitled to defend directly or indirectly. In view of this order, the defendant examined himself and did not produce any evidence. The suit was decreed by the learned trial Judge on 3rd June, 95.
(3.) CIVIL Appeal Decree No. 20/95 was filed against the judgment and decree dated 3rd June, 95 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Jaitaran. The appeal was disposed of by the learned Additional District Judge, Sojat (Camp at Jaitaran) by judgment dated 10th April, 96. It appears that it was contended before the learned Additional District Judge that the effect of striking out of the defence of the tenant was not to prevent the tenant from producing evidence on issues, which did not relate to his eviction. The learned Additional District Judge observed that the tenant had disputed the rate of rent and the right of the plaintiff to file the suit for eviction was also challenged and the defendant had been denied an opportunity to produce the evidence. The learned Additional District Judge, therefore, set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial court and remanded the case to the court of learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Jaitaran. It is against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Jaitaran, this appeal has been filed.;