Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 353 (UTT)

AJAY KUMAR v. SUSHIL KUMAR

2016-07-15

SERVESH KUMAR GUPTA

body2016
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. This revision is directed against the order dated 5.2.2016 rendered by the Judge, Small Causes Court/Second Additional Judge, Roorkee in SCC Case No.3 of 2015, titled as ‘Sushil Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar Agarwal & another’, whereby the Issue No.3 pertaining to the valuation of suit has been decided against the defendants/revisionists. 2. Having heard the rival contentions put forth by learned Counsel for either party, it seems that all out efforts on behalf of the tenants/ revisionists is to protract the proceedings of the S.C.C. Suit and further, to create every sort of impediment in getting it adjudicated in the Court of Additional District Judge. 3. This revision has been filed, wrapping unacceptable grounds, seeking remission of S.C.C. Suit No.3 of 2015 to the Court of Civil Judge, whereas, in the interest of justice and having note of the order dated 16.02.2016 passed by this Court in Civil Revision No.12 of 2016, the District Judge was pleased to transfer such SCC Suit in the Court of Additional District Judge to be adjudicated along with the Original Suit No.36 of 2015. 4. That apart, the contention on behalf of the tenants is that in order to oust the jurisdiction of the Civil Court, relief (b) has been claimed asking a sum of Rs.3,000/- per month as mesne profits whereas the shop, in question, was initially given at the rate of Rs.500/- per month and later on, the rent was enhanced at the rate of Rs.600/- per month. I do not find any force in this argument for the reason that due to the steep rise of commercialization in the growing towns, the shops, that too on the roadside, now have become very dearer and no alike shop can be procured on tenancy just at the meager rent of Rs.600/- or Rs.1000/- per month. This view is fortified by the report dated 13.10.2016 given by the Executive officer, Municipal Council, Manglore, District Haridwar, which is annexed as Annexure No.1 to the counter affidavit, filed on behalf of the respondent. 5. All told, I do not find any force in this revision which is liable to be dismissed. The revision is, accordingly, dismissed. Order dated 17.3.2016 passed by this Court, directing the Court below not to pass the final judgment till three months’ period, is hereby vacated. 5. All told, I do not find any force in this revision which is liable to be dismissed. The revision is, accordingly, dismissed. Order dated 17.3.2016 passed by this Court, directing the Court below not to pass the final judgment till three months’ period, is hereby vacated. The Trial Judge is directed to proceed with the trial expeditiously. 6. It is, however, clarified that any observation made by this Court in the body of judgment will not influence the Court below while deciding the matter on merits.