Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1871 (ALL)

Umesh Miglani v. Pooran Chand Gupta

2015-07-10

DINESH GUPTA

body2015
JUDGMENT Dinesh Gupta, J. This civil revision is preferred under Section 25 of Provincial Small Causes Court Act against the order dated 16.1.2008 passed by Additional District and Session Judge, Court No.11, Saharanpur in SCC Suit No.13 of 2007 Pooran Chand Gupta and others Vs. Dr. Umesh Miglani. 2. The brief facts which give rise to this revision are: 3. Plaintiffs respondents hereinafter called 'the respondents' filed a suit for eviction and recovery of rent against the defendant-revisionist hereinafter called 'the revisionist' which was registered as SCC suit no. 13 of 2007 and was transferred to the Court of Additional District Judge, Court no.11, Saharanpur for disposal. 4. As per the plaint allegations the respondent purchased the property in question from one Sri Virendra Kumar, grand son of erstwhile landlord, Sri Karam Chand vide Sale deed dated 27.8.1999. 5. The respondent filed a suit for ejectment of the revisionist with the allegation that the revisionist was tenant @ of Rs.500/- per month alongwith Rs.75 as tax in addition to the rent and the total rent was Rs.575/- per month. Revisionist was habitual defaulter and rent from 27.8.1999 was due against him. 6. A notice was given to the revisionist by which the tenancy was terminated which was duly served upon the revisionist. The revisionist also substantially and materially altered the property in dispute and damaged the same and thus liable for ejectment on this ground also. 7. Since the revisionist has failed to comply with the ejectment notice hence the respondents are compelled to file this suit for ejectment for the revisionist as well as for recovery of rent and for damages for use and occupation. The revisionist filed the written statement and denied the allegation made in the plaint and submitted that rate of rent is only Rs.150/- per month inclusive of all rent and taxes and the allegation of the plaintiff that the rate of rent is Rs.575/- is denied. The revisionist further take legal and other factual pleas. 8. The learned counsel for the respondent filed rent receipt per list No.19 Ga with the allegation that they contained the signature of the revisionist. When these documents were shown to the learned counsel for the revisionist, he simply made an endorsement as not admitted. The revisionist further take legal and other factual pleas. 8. The learned counsel for the respondent filed rent receipt per list No.19 Ga with the allegation that they contained the signature of the revisionist. When these documents were shown to the learned counsel for the revisionist, he simply made an endorsement as not admitted. It was requested by the learned counsel for the respondent that there should be specific endorsement by the revisionist regarding the admission of his signature over the receipt. 9. The revisionist contested the said request of the respondents however, after considering the facts and circumstances, learned Additional District Judge directed the revisionist and his counsel to either admit or not admit the signatures of the revisionist on the rent receipt filed by the respondent. 10. Feeling aggrieved the revisionist filed this revision before this Court. 11. The Court issued notice to the respondent and also stayed the further proceedings of the suit. 12. Learned counsel for both the parties agreed that the revision be disposed of finally at this stage as there are several materials on record to dispose of this revision without summoning the record. 13. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 14. The learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that order passed by the Court is absolutely without jurisdiction. 15. The direction of the Court amounts to evidence in writing at the stage of framing of issue which is not permissible. 16. Rent receipts filed by the respondents were not supported by any affidavit hence they are not worth relying. 17. Learned counsel further submitted that the learned counsel for the revisionist in the lower court has already made an endorsement of not admitting and it was not necessary for the revisionist to specifically admit or deny his signatures. 18. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that order passed by the learned Judge is perfectly legal and within jurisdiction and simply in the garb of filing this revision the revisionist is delaying the disposal of the suit. 19. Learned counsel for the respondent further relied upon Gayatri Devi Vs. Shashi Pal Singh 2005 LawSuit (SC) 465 : 2005 (2) ARC 415 and Shiv Shakti Co-Op Housing Society Vs. Swaraj Developers 2003LawSuit(SC)484 : 2003 (2) ARC 1. 20. I am unable to accept the contention raised by the learned counsel for the revisionist. 21. First of all the revision is legally not maintainable. Shashi Pal Singh 2005 LawSuit (SC) 465 : 2005 (2) ARC 415 and Shiv Shakti Co-Op Housing Society Vs. Swaraj Developers 2003LawSuit(SC)484 : 2003 (2) ARC 1. 20. I am unable to accept the contention raised by the learned counsel for the revisionist. 21. First of all the revision is legally not maintainable. Section 25 of The Provincial Small Cause Courts Act,1887 reads as under: 25 .Revision of decrees and orders of Courts of Small Causes The High Court, for the purpose of satisfying itself that a decree or order made in any case decided by a Court of Small Causes was according to law, may call for the case and pass such order with respect thereto as it thinks fit. 22. By the impugned order the Court has neither disposed of the suit finally nor decided rights of any party. 23. Admittedly, there were dispute regarding the rate of rent between the parties. In order to substantiate his claim the learned counsel for the respondent has filed the rent receipt and simply made a request with the Court that revisionist should either accept his signature on the rent receipt or denied them. In the case of denial they can get the evidence of handwriting experts regarding the signatures. 24. Considering this request the Court has rightly held that since there was a question of dispute of rent between the parties merely endorsement of not admitted will not be suffice and the revisionist should specifically made an endorsement on the receipt either admitting his signature or denied them. There is no illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the Court below. 25. It is also no where stated by the learned counsel for the revisionist that the Court had no jurisdiction to pass the appropriate order. 26. The order require no interference and the revision lacks merit and deserves to be dismissed. It is accordingly, dismissed. 27. Before parting the Court is of the view that by simply filing this frivolous revision before this Court the revisionist has abused the process of law and exemplary cost should have been imposed on the revisionist. However, the Court without imposing exemplary cost directed the Civil Court to decide the suit as expeditiously as possible preferably within six months after receipt of copy of this order.