Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 256 (ALL)

Ramdev Yadav v. B. K. Singh

2016-01-19

YASHWANT VARMA

body2016
JUDGMENT Yashwant Varma, J. – Heard Sri Anurag Khanna, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Nipun Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Ravi Kiran Jain, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Amitabh Agarwal, learned counsel who has appeared for the opposite party. 2. The challenge in the present revision is to an order dated 11 December 2015 in terms of which the court below has proceeded to allow the application of the plaintiff-opposite party in exercise of powers conferred by Order 15, Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) and the right of defence of the defendant-revisionist has been struck off. 3. A suit for eviction and arrears of rent came to be instituted by the plaintiff-opposite party against the defendant-revisionist which is registered as Suit No. 14 of 2013. 4. On an earlier occasion the court below by its judgment and order dated 4 September 2015 had proceeded to strike off the right of defence of the defendant-revisionist and the matter travelled to this Court in a revision, which came to be disposed of on 2 November 2015 in the following terms: - "Heard Sri Anurag Khanna, learned Senior counsel assisted by Ms. Gunjan Jadwani, learned counsel for the defendant-revisionist and Sri Ravi Kiran Jain, learned Senior counsel assisted by Sri Amitabh Agarwal, learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent. The present revision has been filed against the judgement and order dated 4.9.2015 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No.3 Gautam Budh Nagar, whereby the application No.50-Ga filed by the plaintiff-revisionist under Order-15 Rule-5 of C.P.C. in S.C.C. Suit No.14 of 2013 (Dr. B.K. Singh v. Ramdev Yadav), has been allowed and the right of defence of the defendant-revisionist has been struck off. Sri Ravi Kiran Jain, learned Senior counsel for the plaintiff-respondent has fairly stated that this revision may be allowed and the matter may be remitted back to the court below with a direction to the court below that the pending suit may be decided within the time specified by this Court and the matter may not be delayed at the behest of defendant-revisionist. Sri Anurag Khanna, learned Senior counsel stated that the defendant-revisionist will not delay the matter and the suit may be directed to be decided. Sri Anurag Khanna, learned Senior counsel stated that the defendant-revisionist will not delay the matter and the suit may be directed to be decided. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 4.9.2015 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No.3 Gautam Budh Nagar, is hereby set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No.3 Gautam Budh Nagar to reconsider the matter and pass afresh order, most expeditiously, strictly in accordance with law preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The present revision is, accordingly, disposed of. No order as to cost. Order Date: - 2.11.2015" 5. Pursuant to the order passed by the Court dated 2 November 2015 the court below appears to have taken up the application under Order 15, Rule 5 CPC for consideration all over again and finding that the revisionist had failed to deposit the monthly rent starting from May, 2014 within the time prescribed, allowed the application and again struck off the right of defence of the revisionist. 6. Assailing the said order, Sri Khanna contends that the order passed by this Court on 2 November 2015 had clearly indicated that the court concerned shall endeavour to decide the suit itself within a period of four months. It was his submission that there was no occasion for the court below to go into the aforesaid issue of compliance with the provisions of Order 15, Rule 5 CPC and to strike off the right of the defence of the revisionist. 7. Countering the submissions made by the revisionist, Sri Jain has submitted that the order of this Court dated 2 November 2015, directed the court concerned to reconsider the matter and pass a fresh order and therefore, this operative direction of the Court did not preclude the court concerned from considering whether the provisions of Order 15, Rule 5 CPC stood complied with. 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds no substance in the submissions advanced on behalf of the plaintiff-opposite party. The submission of the revisionist as recorded in the order of the Court dated 2 November 2015 is that the pending suit itself be decided. 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds no substance in the submissions advanced on behalf of the plaintiff-opposite party. The submission of the revisionist as recorded in the order of the Court dated 2 November 2015 is that the pending suit itself be decided. It is evident from a reading of the order dated 2 November 2015 that the counsel for the plaintiff-respondent proceeded to exceed to the above submission subject to the order of 4 September 2015 being set aside. Since the earlier order appears to have been passed by this Court with consent, it appears that the court below misconstrued the operative directions as carried in the order of the Court on 2 November 2015. 9. Sri Jain in all fairness has stated that the anxiety of the plaintiff-revisionist is for an early disposal of the suit proceedings itself and as such the court below be requested and required to conclude the proceedings as early as possible. 10. Sri Khanna, learned Senior counsel has contended that his client after the order of this Court dated 2 November 2015 has deposited the arrears of monthly rent and that he shall comply with the provisions of Order 15 Rule 5 CPC and participate in the suit proceedings without taking recourse to any unnecessary adjournment. 11. Bearing in mind the above submissions of the learned senior counsels appearing for the contesting parties, this Court is of the opinion that the order dated 11 December 2015 in the interest of natural justice, is liable to be set aside. 12. Accordingly this revision shall stand allowed. The order of the Court below dated 11 December 2015 is hereby set aside. The revisionist shall file his written statement before the court below who shall now proceed to decide the suit itself on merits and conclude the same expeditiously and in any view of the matter within a period of four months as was mandated in the earlier order of the Court dated 2 November 2015. The revisionist shall comply through out with the provisions of Order 15, Rule 5 CPC. 13. The revision stands allowed in the above terms. Revision allowed.