The contention of the revisionist is that despite the specific objection being taken in the written statement that the notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act has not been served upon the revisionist, no finding has been recorded by the trial court. He further submitted that the rent was Rs.100/-. The plaintiff has issued notice twice stating that the rent was Rs.1500/- and both the notices have been replied by the revisionist stating that the rent was only Rs.100/- but no action whatsoever has been taken against both the notices. Without adducing any evidence that the rent was Rs.1500/-, the trial court has accepted the contention of the plaintiff that the rent was Rs.1500/- and accordingly decreed the suit on the ground of default.
I have perused the impugned order. It appears that despite the objection being raised by the revisionist in written statement that the notice has not been served upon him, no finding has been recorded by the court below.
The matter requires consideration.
Issue notice to the respondents returnable at an early date. The revisionist may take steps to serve the respondents by registered post.
List in the week commencing 1.8.2011.
Till the next date of listing, the operation of the impugned order dated 6.5.2011 shall remain stayed provided the revisionist shall deposit the decreetal amount within two months.
Order Date :- 4.7.2011 OP