Yorinagum @ Yaurengam vs Shivshankar Gupta Advocate

Anjani Kumar Mishra, J.—Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and Shri Murlidhar Mishra, counsel for the opposite parties.

The revision has been filed challenging the order dated 31.05.2006 whereby a S.C.C. Suit filed by the respondent has been ordered to proceed ex parte against the tenant petitioner as also order dated 24.09.2016 whereby the application filed for the recall of this order has been dismissed.

The District Judge, Jhansi, vide order dated 31.05.2016 held that the service of notice of the suit upon the tenant revisionist to be sufficient on account of endorsement made by postman to the effect that the house of the defendant was found locked repeatedly. Earlier the process of server had submitted a similar report.

After the order was passed, the landlord refused to accept the rent of the month of June and also informed the revisionist about the order to proceed ex parte.

It has further been submitted that a recall application was filed immediately on the reopening day after the summer vacation.

Learned counsel for the opposite party has placed the relevant findings recorded in the impugned orders and has prayed for dismissal of the revision.

In view of the facts noted above and the admitted position that the suit has not yet been decided finally, I consider it appropriate grant the revisionist one last opportunity to contest the proceedings.

The revisionist must, therefore, appear before the court below along with a certified copy of this order as also his written statement on 27.10.2016. The court below/ District Judge shall thereafter proceed with the matter in accordance with law taking into consideration of the written statement filed by the revisionist. An undertaking had been given by the counsel for the revisionist that no unnecessary adjournment shall be sought by the revisionist. Accordingly the orders dated 31.05.2016 and 24.09.2016 are hereby quashed and the revision is allowed, subject to the observations and directions herein above.

It is however provided that in case the revisionist does not file his written statement by the date specified above, the revisionist shall not be entitled to any benefit under the order and this revision shall be deemed to stand dismissed.