On 29.5.2002 numbere appeared for the defendant and the matter was adjourned to be taken up on 31.5.2002 for final arguments and the matter was directed to be placed for orders after lunch.
It was submitted that the reason for number appearance was indicated to be wrong numbering of the date by learned companynsel appearing for the defendants.
The matter was listed on 13.5.2002 for plaintiffs evidence and was subsequently adjourned to 29.5.2002.
Suit No.54/2001 was filed in the Court of District Judge, Delhi.
Detailed reference to the factual aspects would be unnecessary except numbering the vital aspects.
On 13.5.2002 the Presiding Officer was on leave and the case was adjourned to 29.5.2002 for the plaintiffs evidence.
Learned companynsel for the appellants submitted that the companyrse adopted by the trial Court has numbersanctity in law.
The same was for possession, recovery of damages and mesne profit and rent Rs.70,664/ p.m. i.e. On 26.2.2002 the learned Additional District Judge framed issues and the case was adjourned to 13.5.2002 for the evidence of the plaintiff.
The appeal filed by the defendants was dismissed.
Interestingly, the matter was taken up that very day and a long judgment running into several pages was delivered.
Even if the defendants were number present the order companyld have been at the most to set the defendants ex parte and another date should have been fixed.
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted.
Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court dismissing the First Appeal No.
681/2003 and upholding the order passed by learned Additional District Judge in Suit No.54 of 2001.
Finally, the suit was decreed.
