High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Indra Deo v. A.D.J., Jaunpur And Others - WRIT - A No. 18624 of 2006  RD-AH 7311 (5 April 2006)
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 18624 of 2006
Indra Deo ........... Petitioner.
Addl. District Judge/Special Judge,
(E.C. Act), Jaunpur & another ........... Respondents.
Hon'ble Krishna Murari, J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Shiv Dayal Tiwari, learned counsel for contesting respondent no.2.
By means of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 28.8.2000 passed by the Judge, Small Causes Court, Jaunpur decreeing the suit filed by respondent no.2 for ejectment and arrears of rent as well as order dated 29.3.2006 passed by the rivisional court refusing to condone the delay in filing the revision and dismissed the revision as barred by time.
The facts are that the suit filed by respondent no.2 for arrears of rent and ejectment of the petitioner was decreed ex-parte. The petitioner moved an application under Order 9 Rule 13 for recalling the said order which was also dismissed on 13.2.2001. Feeling aggrieved the petitioner filed a revision. The revision was allowed vide order dated 13.10.2003 and the case was remanded back to the trial court for reconsidering the recall application. The trial court vide order dated 21.2.2004 again rejected the recall application on the ground that provisions of Section 17 of the Small Causes Court have not been followed. The petitioner again challenged the said order by filing a revision. The rivisional court vide order dated 21.2.2004 dismissed the revision of the petitioner. The order of the revisional court dismissing the revision came to be confirmed by this court when the writ petition no. 25363 of 2004 was dismissed on 21.7.2004. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a civil suit no. 724 of 2005 for cancellation of the ex-parte decree dated 28.8.2000. An application for interim injunction was also made, but no interim injunction was granted. The petitioner also filed an objection under Order 21 Rule 29 of the C.P.C in the execution proceedings on the ground that he has filed a civil suit for cancellation of the decree which is sought to be executed. The said application was rejected by the trial court vide order dated 19.10.2005. It was only thereafter the petitioner preferred a time barred revision challenging the ex-parte decree dt.28.8.2000 which was dismissed. The revisonal court found that explanation submitted for delay in filing the revision are not bonafide and hence refused to condone the delay and dismissed the same as barred by time.
I have perused the impugned orders.
A finding has been recorded by the courts below that the petitioner had full knowledge of the ex-parte decree and even after his application under Order 9 Rule 13 was dismissed, he did not prefer revision instead filed a suit as well as objection in the execution proceeding. It was only when the petitioner failed on all the fronts the present revision has been filed. I see no reason to interfere with the findings recorded by the courts below while rejecting the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
In view of the findings recorded by the court below, there is no scope for interference in the impugned judgment.
The writ petition accordingly, fails and is dismissed.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.