HAKIM SINGH Vs. CHUNNI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision has been preferred under section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 (for short, the "Act, 1887") against the judgment and order dated 6th September, 2007 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 15, Agra in Misc. Case No. 9 of 2007, Hakim Singh v. Chunni Lal, whereby the application moved by the revisionist Under Order IX, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, the "C.P.C.") has been rejected. The plaintiff/landlord, opposite party herein, instituted a suit, being SCC Suit No. 22 of 2006, Sri Chunni Lal v. Sri Hakim Singh, in the Court of District Judge, Agra for ejectment and arrears of rent in respect of the shop situated at 18/162, Fatehabad Road, new Taj View Hotel, Tajganj, Agra. Said suit was decreed ex parte on 1st February, 2007. The Court below has proceeded to pass the said ex parte order after recording a finding that the defendant/tenant, revisionist herein, had, in fact, knowledge about the pendency of the suit. It is stated that the defendant/revisionist had also filed Original Suit No. 182 of 2006 before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Agra against the landlord, opposite party herein, for permanent prohibitory injunction in respect of the same shop. Said suit was dismissed on 16th January, 2007 by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Agra, appeal against which has also been dismissed. It is stated that in the said appeal, for the first time, the defendant/revisionist came to know that SCC Suit No. 22 of 2006 was ex parte decreed on 1st February, 2007.

(2.) It is stated that on 27th February, 2007 learned Counsel for the tenant moved an application for inspection of records of S.C.C. Suit No. 22 of 2006 and thereafter on 7th March, 2007 he moved an application under Order IX, Rule 13, C.P.C. for setting aside the ex parte decree passed in S.C.C. Suit No. 22 of 2006. The tenant has also moved an application on the same date i.e., 7th March, 2007 under section 17 of the Act, 1887 and the said application was allowed. In compliance of the said order, it is stated that the defendant/revisionist had deposited Rs. 8,412/- in cash and the bank guarantee was furnished in respect of rest of the amount. The Court below, after exchange of pleadings, rejected the application of the defendant/revisionist filed under Order IX, Rule 13, C.P.C. by the impugned order dated 6th September, 2007 on the ground that the defendant/tenant had knowledge about the pendency of the suit.

(3.) I have heard Sri S.K. Kakkar, learned Counsel for the revisionist, and Sri P.N. Dubey, learned Counsel for the opposite party.