( 1 ) THIS revision petition was filed by the defendant in a suit. No. 429 of 1965, in the Court of the. Subordinate Judge, Delhi, against an order of the learned Subordinate Judge, dated 28-7-1967, cancelling his earlier order issuing a commission for the examination of a witness, and directing the issue of a fresh commission for the examination of the said witness.

( 2 ) THE aforesaid suit was filed by the respondent (plaintiff) tor the recovery of Rs. 1,786 on account of alleged arrears of rent in respect of a portion of a house. The petitioner (defendant) took on lease the house in question, viz. . House No. 2187, Gali Hinga Beg, Phatan Habash Khan, Delhi, from its landlord on or about 8-2-1948. The said house was subsequently declared as evacuee property in May or June, 1948. The Custodian, on taking over the property, confirmed the tenancy of the petitioner (defendant), and fixed the rent payable by the petitioner (defendant) at Rs. 70 per month. According to the petitioner (defendant), he sub-let a portion of the house to the respondent (plaintiff) tor which the respondent (plaintiff) agreed to pay Rs. 35 per month The petitioner (defendant) alleged that the respondent (plaintiff), after some time, stopped the payment of the rent, that the Custodian, however, recovered the rent at the rate of Rs. 70 per month from the petitioner (defendant) by deducting the same from the compensation due to the defendant for his property left in Pakistan, and tor some balance that remained, the petitioner (defendant) purchased claims from other evacuees and tendered the same in payment of his rental dues to the Custodian.

( 3 ) ON or about 31-1-1958, the property was auctioned by the Custodian, and the respondent (plaintiff) purchased the same and obtained provisional possession of the same on 24-3-1962. The petitioner (defendant) was asked to attorn to the respondent (plaintiff) with effect from 24-3-1962. In that manner, the petitioner (defendant) became a tenant of the respondent (plaintiff ).

( 4 ) SUBSEQUENTLY, tor the rent due to him, I the respondent (plaintiff) filed the aforesaid suit on 2-6-1965. He, however, did not mention the amounts which were alleged to be due from him to the petitioner (defendant ). On 81-7-1965, the petitioner (defendant) filed his written statement, and on 1. 0-8-1865, the issue; were framed. The case was adjourned to 22-11-1965 for defendant s evidence. It was again adjourned to 25-1-1966, then to 10-3- 1966, then to 5-4-1966 and then to 18-5-1908. According to the petitioner (defendant), since the respondent (plaintiff) did not mention in his plaint about the amounts payable by him to the respondent (plaintiff), the petitioner (defendant) made an application on 27-7-1966 under Order 26, Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for examination of a clerk of the Regional Settlement Commissioner, Lucknow, by means of interrogatories. The said application was granted on 1-9-1966, and it was directed by the lower Court that the commission was returnable before 31st October, 1966. The petitioner (defendant) deposited the necessary commission fee on 2-9-1966. On 4-10-1966, the said commission was received by the District Court, Lucknow. As the commission was not returned by 31-10-1966, the lower Court sent a reminder on 28-12-1966 to the District Court, Lucknow, but no reply was received. It appears the lower Court had to adjourn the matter, awaiting the commission, on 8 or 9 occasions, and the last of the adjournments "as for 17-7-1967. On that date, the petitioner (defendant) did not appear, and the Court ordered setting down the defendant as ex parte. But, on a subsequent application by the petitioner (defendant), the said order setting down the defendant as ex parte was set aside on 27-7-1967.

( 5 ) THE commission Was not received back even by that date. Therefore, on 28-7-1967, the lower Court passed the order which is now sought to be revised. In that order, the lower Court stated that since 1-9-1966, t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document