Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1465 (ALL)

Kamla Devi v. Suryakant Jalan

2015-05-29

DINESH GUPTA

body2015
JUDGMENT Dinesh Gupta, J. Heard Shri B.P. Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Vivek Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist and Shri C.K. Parekh, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This revision under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code has been preferred against the impugned order dated 6.5.2005 passed by IXth Additional District Judge, Varanasi in Original Suit No.28 of 2001 (Suryakant Jalan and others vs. Smt. Kamla Devi and others). 3. The facts in brief are that a Suit No.28 of 2001 was filed by the plaintiffs-respondents for ejectment and possession and also for recovery of Rs. 37,200/-claiming himself the owner and the landlord of the disputed accommodation and treating the revisionist as the tenant of the disputed premises. 4. The defendant-revisionist filed written statement denied the plaint allegations and also denied the knowledge of sale of disputed premises in favour of the plaintiffs-respondents and also denied to accept him owner and landlord. 5. The defendant-revisionist also relied upon an agreement dated 2.1.1995, which was executed on stamp of Rs.100. The said agreement was impound by the court below on the application of the opposite parties-respondents. 6. The plaintiffs-respondents again moved an application stating that the said agreement is not property stamped, hence, the document be sent to the Collector for impounding and the court sent the above said document to the Collector for impounding. 7. The Office of the Collector reported that the area of premises given on rent vide agreement dated 2.1.1995, has not been specified in the deed itself. 8. Then an application was moved by the plaintiffs before the court below for direction to the revisionist to give area of premises in question. 9. The court directed the defendant-revisionist to give area of premises in dispute alleged to have been in the tenancy of the revisionist. 10. Feeling aggrieved, the revisionist preferred this revision before this Court. 11. At the time of admission, notices were issued to the respondents and operation of the impugned order was stayed. 12. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that the order passed by the learned court below is absolutely illegal and without jurisdiction. 10. Feeling aggrieved, the revisionist preferred this revision before this Court. 11. At the time of admission, notices were issued to the respondents and operation of the impugned order was stayed. 12. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that the order passed by the learned court below is absolutely illegal and without jurisdiction. The alleged agreement of tenancy dated 2.1.1995 was impounded under the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 by the order dated 9.7.2004 by the same learned Judge on the application of the plaintiff, and thereafter, the learned Judge ceased to have any authority to pass any order with regard to the said document impounded by it and was sent to the Collector. 13. Learned counsel for the revisionist further submitted that the learned Judge has exceeded its jurisdiction while passing the impugned order in as much as, after sending the document, the Collector has power to inspect the premises under Section 73-A of Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and the learned Judge has no jurisdiction to ask the revisionist to give the measurement of the disputed premises. 14. Learned counsel for the revisionist further submitted that the plaintiff has filed suit for ejectment, and therefore, it is his duty to provide the area of disputed premises. The order passed by the court below is without jurisdiction and is liable to be set aside. 15. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that revision is legally not maintainable as the order passed by the court below is not an order deciding the case or by the impugned order, the case has not been decided finally. This is an interlocutory order against which no revision will lie. 16. I am unable to accept the contention raised by the learned counsel for the revisionist. 17. Under Section 73-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 clearly provides the Collector's power to authorize officer to enter premises and inspect certain documents. Thus, section 73-A of Indian Stamp Act, 1899 will be of no help. 18. Learned counsel for the revisionist has failed to demonstrate that there is any perversity or illegality in the impugned? order. 19. With the aforesaid observations, I am of the opinion that? the revision lack merits and is accordingly dismissed. 20. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.