Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 2895 (ALL)

Gulabi Devi (Smt. ) v. Kamlesh Kumar Pal

2011-12-19

DILIP GUPTA

body2011
Dilip Gupta, J.;- This petition seeks the quashing of the judgment dated 1st February, 2010 of the Judge, Court of Small Causes, Varanasi by which the application filed by the petitioner under Section 23 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') for return of the plaint to be presented before a Court having jurisdiction to determine the title, has been rejected. The petitioner has also sought the quashing of the judgment dated 15th January, 2011 by which the Revision filed by the petitioner under Section 25 of the Act against the aforesaid judgment dated 1st February, 2010 has been rejected. Govind Krishna Das and others filed SCC Suit No.39 of 1998 against the petitioner Gulabi Devi for ejectment and payment of arrears of rent claiming themselves to be the owners/landlords of House No.B-27/5, Durgakund, Varanasi with the petitioner as a tenant. During the pendency of the said suit, the suit property was purchased by Kamlesh Kumar Pal by a registered sale deed dated 9th February, 2001 and he was impleaded as a plaintiff. The petitioner moved an application under Section 23 of the Act for return of the plaint as it involves serious question of title. This application was rejected by the Judge, Court of Small Causes by the judgment dated 1st February, 2010 and the Revision filed by the petitioner for setting aside the aforesaid judgment was also dismissed. It is stated in paragraph 17 of the writ petition that respondent Kamlesh Kumar Pal also filed a release application under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. The Prescribed Authority allowed the application filed by respondent Kamlesh Kumar Pal by the order dated 24th February, 2010 and the appeal filed by the petitioner against the aforesaid order was also dismissed by the order dated 17th July, 2010. The petitioner filed Writ Petition No.50742 of 2010 to assail these orders which petition has also been dismissed by a detailed judgment of date. The submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned counsel for the respondent are substantially the same. The petitioner filed Writ Petition No.50742 of 2010 to assail these orders which petition has also been dismissed by a detailed judgment of date. The submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned counsel for the respondent are substantially the same. Thus, for the reasons stated in the aforesaid judgment rendered in Writ Petition No.50742 of 2010, it is not possible to accept the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the Courts below committed an illegality in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner under Section 23 of the Act. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.