Ashik Ali vs VIIIth Addl. District Judge

Yatindra Singh, J.—Respondents 3 and 4 (the contesting respondent) filed a JSCC Suit No. 5 of 1986 for eviction of the petitioner. In this suit petitioner filed a written statement and according to him he deposited rent up to 3181985. This suit was dismissed in default on 791987. Subsequently, it was restored on 2121992 on payment of cost of 50 rupees. Thereafter petitioner filed an application to condone the delay in depositing the remaining rent. The trial Court refused lo condone the delay and struck off his defence on 1881993. The petitioner filed a revision against this order which was also dismissed on 2111994. Hence the present writ petition.

I have heard Sri Madhur Prakash Counsel for the petitioner and Sri M.A. Quadeer for the respondent. The petitioner had paid rent up to 3181987. Thereafter the suit was dismissed. It was restored on 2121992 on payment of Rs. 50 as cost. According to the petitioner as his cost was not paid he had not deposited the rent. In view of this the Court ought to have deposited the rent. In view of this the court ought to have condoned the delay in depositing the rent and ought not to have struck off his defence. In view of this the order dated 1981993 and 2111994 are illegal and are quashed. The parties will appear before the trial court on 1382001. In case any admitted rent is still due today that may also be deposited by the petitioner by 1382001 and thereafter the suit itself may be decided expeditiously in accordance with law. With these observation the writ petition is disposed of.

W.P. disposed of.