Uttarakhand High Court
Mr. Ramji Srivastava vs Sri Gopal Agarwal Reported on 17 September, 2014
Author: Alok Singh
Bench: Alok Singh
WPMS No. 2170 of 2014 Hon'ble Alok Singh, J.
Mr. Ramji Srivastava, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Ramji Srivastava, learned counsel for the tenant/petitioner vehemently argued that entire arrears of rent as well as monthly rent was deposited before the Trial Court, as observed by the Revisional Court in paragraph no. 14 of the impugned judgment, therefore, in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Curt in the case of Bimal Chand Jain vs. Sri Gopal Agarwal reported in 1981 (3) SCC 486 which was duly affirmed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Bal Gopal Maheshwari and others vs. Sanjeev Kumar Gupta reported in 2013 (8) SCC 789, learned Trial Court should not have acted mechanically by striking out the defence of the defendant/petitioner, herein, and delay, if any, in depositing of the monthly rent should have been condoned. He further contends that condonation of delay can be sought even orally without moving any written representation, as held by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Bimal Chand Jain (Supra).
Issue notice to the plaintiff/respondent no. 1, 1/1 and 1/2 by registered post AD in addition to normal mode of service.
Meanwhile, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, operation and effect of the impugned orders striking out the defence of the defendant/petitioner, herein, dated 29.11.1996 as well as 27.08.2014 shall remain stay.
CLMA No. 10548 of 2014 stands disposed of accordingly.
(Alok Singh, J.) Dated 17.09.2014 Deepak