Alok Kumar Mishra - Revisionists @HASH Gaya Prasad Singh Alias Hari Nath Singh And Others - Opposite Parties

Sudhir Agarwal, J. - Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the record.

This revision under Section 25 of Provincial Slam Causes Courts Act has arisen from judgment and decree dated 6.8.2011 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No. 10, Varanasi in SCC suit No. 12 of 2008 (Gaya Prasad Singh and others v. Smt. Surajmani and others) under Order 17, Rule 3 CPC.

Since defendant-revisionist did not adduce any evidence hence court proceeded to hear matter on the next date and has decided suit. Suit has been decreed directing defendants to vacate the house in dispute within 60 days with arrears of rent and damages.

It is contended that on 5.8.2011, revisionist met with an accident and could not lead evidence. Hence judgment and decree dated 6.8.2011 passed under Order 17, Rule 3 CPC is ex-parte. Hence entire proceedings are illegal and liable to be set aside.

However, order sheet shows that for evidence of defendant-revisionist various dates were fixed but he did not cooperate inasmuchas on 4.3.2011 defendant-revisionist and his counsel did not attend Court and it was adjourned to 25.3.2011. On the next date revisionist again did not attend. On 18.4.2011 defendant''s counsel sought adjournment. On 6.7.2011 again case was called. Neither counsel nor defendant appeared and subsequently, case was adjourned. Again case was adjourned with consent of revisionist. In the circumstances, Court below had proceeded to decide under Order 17, Rule 3 CPC.

It is contended that defendant-revisionist sustained serious injuries in the accident in 2009 but in this regard medical certificate(Annexure 7 to the revision) shows that it is a certificate of Homoeopathic clinic which does not indicate that any serious injury was sustained by defendant-revisionist. Even alleged certificate is dated 8.9.2011 though suit was decided on 6.8.2011. No other point was argued.

In these circumstances, looking to the history of the case, I find that order cannot be said erroneous or having passed in violation of any provision. I do not find any error apparent in the order passed by the court below.

Revision is dismissed with cost of Rs. 25,000/-.

Certify this judgment to the lower court immediately.