Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 3327 (ALL)

Ayub Khan v. Anno Begum @ Anwari

2015-10-26

RAJESH DAYAL KHARE

body2015
JUDGMENT Rajesh Dayal Khare,J. Sri Santosh Kumar Singh, Advocate has filed counter affidavit on behalf of respondent nos. 2 and 3 which has been taken on record. 2. Counsel for the revisionist states that he does not want to file any rejoinder affidavit. 3. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Santosh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 and 3. 4. The present revision has been filed against the judgment and order dated 24.08.2015 passed by the Additional District Judge/J.S.C.C. Court No. 8, Mathura in Misc. Case No. 33 of 2012 (Ayub Khan Vs. Smt. Anno Begum @ Anwari and others), whereby the Misc. Case No. 33 of 2012 has been rejected affirming the Judgement and order dated 01.10.2012 passed by Judge Small Causes Court. 5. Learned counsel for the revisionist contends that the respondents have initiated the proceedings by filing a suit for evicting the defendant-revisionist from the shop in question on the ground of arrears of rent and ejectment which suit was decreed exparte without any service of notice upon the revisionist vide impugned judgment and order. It is further contended that when the revisionist came to know about the execution proceedings, he moved an application under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. seeking recall of the exparte judgment and decree dated 1.10.2012 which was also rejected. It is next contended that the court below has arbitrarily and illegally rejected the recall application of the revisionist on wholly whimsical and non existent grounds. Learned counsel for the revisionist has placed reliance upon a judgment of this Court in the case of Balbir Singh Chauhan Vs. Vijai Kumar Agarwal, 1987 AWC 388 in support of his contention. 6. Sri Santosh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 and 3 states that the mandatory requirement has not been complied with by the revisionist. 7. Learned counsel for the revisionist states that the revisionist will deposit the entire decreetal amount before the court below within a month after adjusting the amount already deposited by the revisionist. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and after perusing the averments made in the revision, the order dated 24.08.2015 passed by learned Additional District Judge/JSCC Court No. 8, Mathura in Misc. Case No. 33 of 2012 (Ayub Khan Vs. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and after perusing the averments made in the revision, the order dated 24.08.2015 passed by learned Additional District Judge/JSCC Court No. 8, Mathura in Misc. Case No. 33 of 2012 (Ayub Khan Vs. Smt. Anno Begum @ Anwari and others) is hereby set aside with the direction that the revisionist shall deposit the entire decreetal amount within a month from today, after adjusting the amount already deposited by the revisionist, if any, and the learned Court below shall consider and decide the matter afresh, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible without granting unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties. 9. However, in case, the entire decreetal amount after adjusting the amount already deposited by the revisionist, is not deposited by the revisionist within the aforesaid period, the protection granted by this Court shall automatically stand vacated and the concerned Court below will proceed against the revisionist in accordance with law. 10. With the aforesaid directions, this revision stands disposed of.