TaxTMI 
2024 (9) TMI 1986
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Jitendra Mohan Sharma, Sr. Adv. Mrs. Rachna Gupta, AOR Mr. Akshat Sharma, Adv. Mr. Amrit Pardhan, Adv. Mr. Anil Raina, Adv. JUDGMENT ABHAY S OKA, J. CIVIL APPEAL NOS.2399-2401/2023 1. The appellants are the defendants in a suit filed by the first respondent and one Shanti Devi, who is no more and has been shown as the third respondent in these Appeals. For convenience, we are referring to the parties with reference to their status in the suit. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. The suit was filed on 8th November, 2001 for possession of the property, more particularly described in the schedule (suit property). The allegation in the suit is that the first defendant, the State of Uttaranchal (now Uttarakhand), was a tenant of the plaintiffs in respect of the suit property at a monthly rent of Rs. 86,232/- (Rupees Eighty-six Thousand Two Hundred and Thirty two), which was fixed by an order dated 18th May, 1999 passed by the learned 3rd Additional District Judge, Dehradun. The allegation is that though the rent was fixed with effect from 1st September, 1993, the first defendant did not pay the rent. Therefore, the plaintiffs issued a notice of terminati....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....it is stated that he was present on 22nd April 2002 till 4:00 p.m., but the case was not called out. On 30th May, 2002, the application for setting aside the order directing the suit to proceed ex parte was rejected. At this stage, we may note here that in the proceedings of 22nd April 2002, it was recorded that on that day, the lawyers had abstained from the Court work, and the learned Presiding Judge was on a tour of Mussoorie for holding a camp. There is no mention in the proceedings of 22nd April, 2002 that any in charge Judicial Officer passed an order to proceed with the suit ex parte. To the specific allegations made by the defendants in the application for setting aside the ex parte order that the Judicial Officer was not available, in the reply filed by the plaintiffs in paragraph 4, all that is stated is that the contentions that on 22nd April, 2002, the learned District Judge had proceeded to Mussoorie, are misconceived and the provisions of the Assam and Agra Civil Courts Act are apparent in this respect. 5. On 1st July, 2002, the defendants applied for setting aside the order dated 3rd May, 2002 by which their defence was struck out. The application proceeds on the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t the defendants'. Therefore, a copy of the said application was not served upon the defendants. As seen from the proceedings, the application was allowed on 2nd August, 2002. Thereafter, the suit was decreed on 24th August, 2002. It is true that before the application for amendment of the plaint was allowed, the defendants' defence was already struck out. Even if the defendants' defence was struck out, the defendants were entitled to a copy of the amended plaint. What was struck out was the right to defend the suit as unamended. Whether the subsequent plaint will affect the earlier order of striking out the defence will depend upon the nature of the amendment. However, even a copy of the amended plaint was not served on the defendants. 7. The defendants challenged the ex parte decree by filing a statutory revision application under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887, before the learned Single Judge of the High Court. By the impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge rejected the said revision application without noticing the glaring facts borne out from the record which we have reproduced above. A review of the said order of the learned Single Ju....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....May, 1999. The fact remains that the proceedings were delayed due to some default on the part of the defendants. Therefore, as a condition for setting aside the ex parte decree, we propose to direct the State Government to pay an ad hoc amount at the rate of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) per month from 14th July, 2014 and continue to pay the said amount till the disposal of the suit. The deposit will be subject to the outcome of the suit. The defendants will be entitled to an adjustment of the amounts they paid at the rate of Rs. 86,232/- per month. We propose to grant two months to the defendants to pay the balance amount payable up to date at the rate of Rs. 1,00,000/- per month from 14th July, 2014. 12. Hence, we set aside the impugned orders and partly allow the Appeals with the following directions: (i) The ex parte decree dated 24th August, 2002 passed by the learned District and Session Judge, Dehradun, in SCC Suit No. 24/2001 is hereby set aside. The suit is restored to the file of the learned District and Session Judge, Dehradun, subject to the condition of the appellants/defendants depositing an ad hoc amount at the rate of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l Court in a fixed deposit with any nationalised bank; (vii) After the application for striking out the defence is decided, it will be open for the plaintiffs to apply for withdrawal of the amounts. The Trial Court shall decide the said application on its own merits. All contentions on that behalf are left open; (viii) We make it clear that we have made no adjudication on the merits of the controversy, including the title issue raised by the appellants/defendants. The Trial Court shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law in the restored suit on its own merits; (ix) We make it clear that as we have directed the appellants/defendants to deposit the ad hoc amount at the rate of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) per month, we are not passing a separate order of costs; (x) Considering the fact that the suit is of the year 2001, it is obvious that the Trial Court will give necessary out of turn priority for hearing the application for striking out the defence. In the event the suit is required to be heard on merits, the Trial Court will give the necessary priority to the disposal of the suit, considering the fact that the suit is of the y....