SBCWP No.584/2008 Raj Kumar & Ors. Vs. Addl. District Judge No.3, Udaipur & Anr. 1 SBCWP No.584/2008 Raj Kumar & Ors. Vs. Addl. District Judge No.3, Udaipur & Anr. DATE OF ORDER : - 12.1.2009 HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J. Mr.PS Chundawat, for the petitioner. Mr. Deelip Kawadia, for the respondent. <><><> Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner is aggrieved against the order passed by the trial court on application filed under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC and dismissal of the appeal by the first appellate court dated 31.8.2007. The suit for eviction was filed in the trial court on 3rd March, 1996 wherein the defendant himself put in appearance and submitted written statement and, thereafter, trial court determined the rent on 12th May, 1998 and held that total Rs.17,385/- are due in the defendant-tenant as arrears of rent with interest as per law. Admittedly, the said rent was not paid or deposited by the defendant and, thereafter, the suit of the plaintiff was SBCWP No.584/2008 Raj Kumar & Ors. Vs. Addl. District Judge No.3, Udaipur & Anr. 2 decreed by the trial court ex-parte on pleading no instruction by the counsel of the defendant vide judgment and decree dated 15.3.2004. It is stated by learned counsel for the petitioner- defendant that possession of the suit premises was handed over to defendant in the year 1998 itself. However, the application has been submitted for setting aside of the ex- parte decree because there is a decree for arrears of rent. Two courts below after appreciating the facts of the case refused to set aside the ex-parte decree which is substantially for setting aside of the decree for arrears of rent. After going through the reasons given by the two courts below, I do not find any case for exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the writ petition of the petitioner is dismissed. (PRAKASH TATIA), J. c.p.goyal/-