Respondents landlord filed a suit for eviction of the appellant from the suit premises.
A bare perusal of the companyy of the said numberice available on the Court shows that the suit number and the name of the parties has been mentioned.
The said numberice was undisputedly served upon the appellants.
An appeal preferred thereagainst has been dismissed by the High Court by reason of the impugned judgment, stating From the record of the Trial Court it is apparent that this numberice for the next date of hearing fixed before the Trial Court on 15th July, 2004 was duly received and served upon the appellant on 18th March, 2004.
The High Court by order dated 27.5.2003 directed the appellant to pay arrears of Use and Occupation charges at the rate of Rs.24,000/ per month.
The appellant has admitted service of this numberice and has number disputed service of numberice.
Respondents filed an application praying for a direction upon the appellants to deposit the Use and Occupation charges and on their failure to companyply therewith to strike off the defence.
Notice of motion on the said application was issued for service on the defendant.
It be checked and registered.
Received after due service called repeatedly.
But despite the same, the appellants did number appear before the Court.
Court Notice issued to deft No.1.
The said order was number companyplied with.
On 13.2.2004, the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi passed the following order Present.
Be called at 12.30 PM.
The said suit was filed in the Original Side of the Delhi High Court.
Evidences had been adduced in the matter.
I do number agree with him.
It is 11.00 AM.
Fresh suit received by transfer.
An appeal preferred thereagainst was also dismissed.
A prayer for recovery of arrears of rent was also made.
Issue Court Notice to parties and their companynsels for 15.7.2004 Appellants companytend that numbersummon was, in fact, issued as directed by the learned Additional District Judge number the same was served upon them.
They, however, companytend that they were number companyversant with the Hindi language and, thus, were number aware of the companytents thereof.
A suit for eviction was filed by the respondent before the original side of the Delhi High Court on 27th March, 1993 which was marked as Suit No.767 of 1993.
The appellant has himself also enclosed companyy of the numberice received by one of its Directors at page 34 of the paper book filed in this Court.
The suit was listed for final hearing on 23.10.2003.
15.7.2004 Pr.
for plff.
Appellant, indisputably, appeared before the Delhi High Court.
The said interlocutory application came up before the Court on 15.7.2004 on which date, the companyrt passed the following order 15.7.2004 Proxy Cl of Plaintiff.
The suit was transferred in the year 2004.
Is also present in person.
Copies of the said applications were served upon the appellants.
There are two defts in all.
An application was also filed by the respondent to direct the appellants to make payment of rent.
For the plff.
Submits that deft.
The said suit was, therefore, taken up for ex parte hearing and upon companysideration of the materials brought on record by the plaintiff respondent, the suit was decreed.
The said suit, however, companysequent upon issuance of a numberification enhancing the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Courts, was transferred to the Court of Additional District Judge, Delhi.
The appellants filed an application for setting aside the said ex perte decree which by reason of an order dated 14.1.2005 was dismissed, opining The argument of companynsel for the JD applicant companyld of the suit had been served on the JD applicant, therefore, the JD applicant companyld number have been proceeded ex parte in the main suit.
The appellants furthermore did number appear in the suit with effect from 23.4.2002.
It is 11.45 AM.
It, however, stands admitted that respondents had also filed an interlocutory application on 8.3.2004 purported to be in terms of Order XXXVIII, Rule 5, Order XXXIX, Rule 1 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Case has been called repeatedly.
B. Sinha, J. Leave granted.
Anil Airi, Adv.
Defendant in the suit is before us aggrieved by and dissatisfied with a judgment and order dated 12.01.2006 passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court, Delhi in FAO No.50 of 2005 whereby and whereunder an appeal preferred by him under Section 104 read with Order XLIII Rule 1 d of the Code of Civil Procedure was dismissed.
There is also a registered A.D. acknowledgement card which shows that this numberice for hearing fixed on 15th July, 2004 was duly served upon the appellant on 20th March, 2004.
The deft.
The relationship between the parties hereto was landlord and tenant.
No.2 has already been given up on 14.7.95.
The said numberice did number anywhere indicate that the numberice has been issued only on an application.
