Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 3395 (ALL)

Jaideep Bajpai v. Sanjeev Kumar Pandey

2016-10-04

PANKAJ MITHAL

body2016
JUDGMENT Pankaj Mithal, J. -- Heard Sri C.B.Gupta, learned counsel for the defendant-revisionist. 2. The defendant-revisionist is facing trial of SCC Suit for arrears of rent and eviction wherein his defence has been ordered to be struck off vide order dated 27.04.2016. 3. The defendant-revisionist applied for the recall of the aforesaid order on the ground that on 27.04.2016 he could not attend the court as he was ill. 4. The aforesaid application for the recall has been rejected by the impugned order dated 30.08.2016. 5. The submission of Sri Gupta learned counsel for the defendant-revisionist is that on the relevant date he was suffering from fever and he had filed medical certificate to establish his illness but even then the recall application has been rejected. 6. The court below has recorded that the suit was directed to proceed ex-parte against the revisionist vide order dated 12.12.2013. The said order was recalled on 03.02.2016 on imposing cost of Rs. 1,000/- and the defendant-revisionist who had been allowed time repeatedly for filing written statement was allowed further time to file written statement. Lastly, he was granted time on 05.04.2016 as of last opportunity to file written statement but he again applied for further time on 05.04.2016 on which 27.04.2016 was fixed. The defendant-revisionist deliberately absented himself on 27.04.2016 and failed to file the written statement. 7. I have seen the recall application as filed by the defendant-revisionist. 8. The said application apart from assigning reason for his absence does not state that he was unable to instruct his counsel. It does not assign any reason for the non-appearance of the counsel. There is no reason or material on record that why the counsel could not file the written statement despite time allowed for the purpose several times in past. 9. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I find that there is no jurisdictional error in the order impugned passed by the Small Causes Court. 10. The revision lacks merits and is dismissed.