1. The present Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been preferred by the appellant-original defendant to quash and set aside the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kadi dated 30/07/1983 in Regular Civil Suit No. 97/1979 by which the learned trial Court decreed the suit filed by the respondent-original plaintiff for recovery of arrears of rent i.e. Rs. 1330/- as well as the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned appellate Court-learned 2nd Joint District Judge, Mehsana dated 03/08/1987 in Regular Civil Appeal No. 159/1983 by which the learned appellate Court has dismissed the said appeal confirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court.
2. Today, when the present Second Appeal is taken up for final hearing the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties have chosen to remain absent. However, considering the fact that the present Second Appeal is of the year 1988 arising out of the Civil Suit, which was filed in the year 1979, the present Second Appeal is heard ex parte.
3. From the impugned judgment and order passed by both the Courts below, it appears that the respondent-original plaintiff instituted the suit before the learned trial Court for recovery of arrears of rent i.e. Rs. 1330/- which was alleged to have been due for the period between 06/06/1977 to 05/01/1979. On appreciation of evidence, the learned trial Court decreed the suit and held that the respondent-original plaintiff is entitled to recovery of Rs. 1330/- from the appellant-original defendant. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order passed by the learned trial Court, the appellant-original defendant preferred Regular Civil Appeal No. 159/1983 before the learned Joint District Judge, Mehsana and the learned appellate Court vide impugned judgment and order dated 03/08/1987 has dismissed the said appeal confirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court.
4. Considering the impugned judgment and order passed by both the Courts below, it appears that both the Courts below have not committed any error and/or illegality in holding that the respondent-original plaintiff is entitled to recovery of arrears of rent i.e. Rs. 1330/-. Hence, there is no substance in the present Second Appeal, which deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. Even otherwise, considering the valuation which is of Rs. 1330/- only, the present Second Appeal is otherwise also not maintainable.
5. In view of the above, the present Second Appeal deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. No cost.
(M.R.
SHAH, J.) siji Top