Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 3792 (ALL)

Virendra Kumar Sapra v. Hamidunnisa Begum

2016-11-24

ANJANI KUMAR MISHRA

body2016
JUDGMENT Anjani Kumar Mishra, J. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist. 2. This case has come up in the additional cause list yesterday also. A statement was made by counsel for the revisionist that Shri A.P. Singh Advocate, who appears for the opposite parties had been informed and had stated that he would be present when the case was taken up. However, when the case was called out he was not present and therefore, the matter was directed to put up today. 3. Today on the case being called out, a notice of this case, sought to be served upon Shri A.P. Singh advocate has been produced, which is taken on record. In this notice it has been endorsed that Shri A.P. Singh, Advocate has informed the person serving the notice that he no longer has instructions in the matter. Accordingly, the matter is being decided finally after hearing the counsel for the revisionist. 4. The instant revision is directed against the order dated 06.04.2004 whereby replication filed by the plaintiff in SCC Suit No.20 of 2002 has been taken on record treating it to be one of better particulars. Simultaneously the revisionist was granted time to file additional W.S. in reply the replication. 5. The order aforesaid has been assailed on the ground that after Rule 5 of Order VI was omitted w.e.f., 01.07.2002, a replication is not a part of the pleadings and therefore, the same could not have been taken on record. The Court below has committed manifest legality in accepting the replication on record. Post amendment and omission of Rule 5 of Order VI, an additional fact could have been brought on record, only by means of an amendment application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC. 6. I have considered the submissions made by Counsel for the revisionist and have perused the order impugned. 7. The Court below has not accepted the contentions raised on behalf of the revisionist-defendant in the suit. It has observed that a procedural law is meant to further the cause of justice. In the case at hand the revisionist is trying to hide behind technicalities. It has therefore taken the replication on record, as an application of better particulars. 8. In my considered opinion, the revisionist has no reason to be aggrieved because by the same order, he was granted time to file an additional W.S. 9. In the case at hand the revisionist is trying to hide behind technicalities. It has therefore taken the replication on record, as an application of better particulars. 8. In my considered opinion, the revisionist has no reason to be aggrieved because by the same order, he was granted time to file an additional W.S. 9. In this connection it would further be relevant to note that the suit was filed in the year 2000. The provision of order VI Rule 5 has been omitted w.e.f., 01.07.2002. Although the application No.28(Ga) of the plaintiff, which has been allowed by the order impugned, was filed after the omission of Rule 5 aforesaid, yet the fact remain that the suit had been filed long before the amendment was incorporated in statute. In my considered opinion, procedural law as it existed, on the date of the suit, would be applicable in the instant case. 10. There is yet another aspect of the matter. The order impugned was passed in the year 2004 in a summary proceedings for arrears of rent & eviction before the Small Causes court. The revision itself was filed belatedly with delay of two years, 131 days. Although, this delay has been condoned, yet no interim order was granted in this revision and yet on the ground of its pendency the suit has not been allowed to proceed any further. This emerges from the perusal of connected revision No.326 of 2015 which is directed against an order dated 01.09.2015 passed in the same SCC suit. 11. In the suit an application was filed by the revisionist seeking an adjournment of two months on account of pendency of the above noted revision No. 84 of 2007 before this Court.This adjournment application having been rejected 01.09.2015 SCC revision No. 326 of 2015, have been filed. 12. It is therefore, writ large on the face of the record that proceedings of the SCC suit have been stalled by the revisionist for 12 long years. This is an additional circumstance which goes against the revisionist 13. I do not see any illegality in the order dated 01.09.2015 impugned in SCC revision No. 326 of 2015. The adjournment application of the revisionist has rightly been dismissed on the ground that there is no interim order operating in Revision No. 84 of 2007 and therefore, the proceedings cannot be adjourned. 14. I do not see any illegality in the order dated 01.09.2015 impugned in SCC revision No. 326 of 2015. The adjournment application of the revisionist has rightly been dismissed on the ground that there is no interim order operating in Revision No. 84 of 2007 and therefore, the proceedings cannot be adjourned. 14. Accordingly, in view of the above discussion, both revisions are found to be without merit. They are therefore, dismissed.