Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 141 (ALL)

Ranno Devi v. Ram Bechan

2018-01-12

VIVEK CHAUDHARY

body2018
JUDGMENT : Vivek Chaudhary, J. 1. Case is called out in the revised list. 2. Learned counsel for the revisionist is present. None is present for the respondent. 3. By the present revision, revisionist has challenged the order dated 02.08.2007 by which her application under Order 15, Rule 5 of Code of Civil Procedure was rejected. The said application was filed by the revisionist claiming that during pendency of the suit, regular rent was not being deposited by the firm which was a tenant. The said application is rejected by the court below on the ground that it is a question of fact as to how much rent was required to be paid and as to whether the partnership stands dissolved or not. 4. Submission of learned counsel for the revisionist is that in the written statement filed by the respondent, the firm has admitted it is not paying the rent. Thus, admission of default of regular deposit of rent is there and thus no evidence is required to be taken. Even otherwise if any evidence was required, the court below ought to have taken the said evidence and decided the application on merits. Merely, because the evidence is required to decide any application, the court could not refuse to decide the same. Hence, the order dated 02.08.2007 cannot stand. There is force in submission of revisionist. The admission of respondent is clear. Otherwise also court is required to take evidence on application regarding regular deposit of rent and decide the application. 5. Accordingly, the order dated 02.08.2007 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 3, Lucknow in SCC Suit No. 66 of 1990 is set aside. Matter is remanded back to the court below to decide the application under Order 15, Rule 5 C.P.C. of the revisionist afresh in accordance with law. 6. Since the matter is very old and is pending since 1990, it is expected that the court below shall decide the said application under Order 15, Rule 5 C.P.C. within a period of three weeks and also the decide the SCC Suit No. 66 of 1990, under the policy of the High Court to obtain zero pendency of cases, which are more than five years, expeditiously within a period of six months from the date a certified copy of this order is placed before it.