Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 176 (ALL)

Sanjay Kumar Modi v. Udai Raj

2017-01-12

ATTAU RAHMAN MASOODI

body2017
JUDGMENT Attau Rahman Masoodi, J. -- Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Amol Kumar who has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent. 2. This revision filed under Section 25 of Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) questions the correctness of the order passed by the Judge, Small Causes in SCC Suit No. 2/2015 on 25.11.2016 whereby the application filed by the revisionist under Section 23 of the Act has been rejected on the ground that the small causes court having jurisdiction to try the suit may even at the stage of evidence, if it is found that the suit involves intricate questions of evidence, may return the plaint to the plaintiff so as to be presented before the competent civil court. 3. The admitted position of facts as is revealed from the pleadings of the parties is that regular suit no. 134/2015 was pending between the parties wherein the alleged collusive decree dated 28.4.2014 passed by the competent court in favour of the opposite party is under challenge at the instance of the revisionist. This apart, regular suit no. 163/14 has also been filed for declaration of rights by the revisionist which is pending between the parties. 4. There is yet another regular suit no. 68/15 which is pending between the parties wherein the will on the basis of which opposite party claims his rights is also a subject matter of challenge between the parties. 5. In the background of aforesaid three civil suits being pending between the parties wherein they are participating, SSC Suit No. 2/15 also came to be filed wherein the opposite party claiming himself to be the landlord/owner on the basis of disputed will executed by late Sushila Devi which is a subject matter of challenge in Suit No. 68/15 pending between the parties, has inter alia, sought eviction of the revisionist. After initiation of the SCC Suit wherein the revisionist-defendant filed an application under Section 23 of the Act praying therein that suit proceedings of SCC suit between the parties being dependent upon the title proceeding already pending, therefore, the plaint may be returned to the opposite party for being presented before the competent civil court. The opposite party in reply to the application filed by the revisionist placed reliance upon a lease agreement dated 17.10.06 of which there is no disclosure in the plaint. The opposite party in reply to the application filed by the revisionist placed reliance upon a lease agreement dated 17.10.06 of which there is no disclosure in the plaint. 6. Once a defence beyond the premise of SCC suit was adopted in the objections filed by the respondent, the revisionist disputing the very authenticity of the lease agreement placed reliance upon, has questioned the same on the ground that his signatures on the alleged agreement are fictitious and forged. 7. The provisions of Provincial Small Causes Court Act, 1887 envisage jurisdiction upon the SCC courts to try the suits between a lessor and lessee where intricate questions of title are not involved between the parties. Not only that the objection raised by the opposite party placing reliance upon a questionable lease is intricate but the title disputes even otherwise in the pending suits are involved. 8. In these circumstances, rejection of the application by the court below, in my considered opinion, suffers from manifest error of law and the matter ought to have been returned by allowing the application filed under Section 23 of the Act. The order passed by the court below thus, calls for interference and the same is hereby set aside. The plaint filed by the opposite party is directed to be returned to the opposite party for being presented before the competent civil court where all the issues shall be dealt with and the proceedings shall be concluded in accordance with law. It is also open to the parties to seek transfer of the proceedings before the competent court under Section 24 CPC on the basis of this order by making an application before the District Judge so that any progress made in the proceedings stands streamlined. 9. In the result, the SCC Revision is allowed.