Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 1661 (ALL)

Ca Kriti Tandon v. Mehta Sai Das Jewelers

2024-07-11

NEERAJ TIWARI

body2024
JUDGMENT : Neeraj Tiwari, J. 1. Heard Sri Prakhar Tandon, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Vikash Mathur along with Sri Rajnish Sahai Saxena, learned counsel for respondent. 2. Present petition has been filed seeking following relief:- "i. Set aside the impugned judgment and decree dated 02.02.2022 passed by learned Judge Small Cause Courts, Kanpur Nagar in SCC Suit No. 72 of 2015 (CA Kriti Tandon vs. M/s Mehta Sai Das Jewelers). ii. Set aside the impugned judgment and decree dated 18.08.2023 passed by learned Revision Court in SCC Revision No. 42 of 2022 (CA Kriti Tandon vs. M/s Mehta Sai Das Jewelers)." 3. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner-plaintiff has filed SCC Suit No. 72 of 2015 for eviction and arrears of rent, upon which, notices were issued and pleadings have also been exchanged. After exchange of pleadings, points of determination have been framed and ultimately suit was rejected by the SCC Court vide order dated 02.02.2022. Against the said order, petitioner-plaintiff has filed SCC Revision No. 42 of 2022, which was also rejected vide order dated 18.08.2023. Against both the orders, present petition has been filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India. 4. Apart from many other grounds, learned counsel for petitioner has firmly argued that while deciding the point no. 4, there is reference of SCC Suit No. 288 of 2021 (Prakhar Tandon vs. M/s Mehta Sai Das Jewelers). SCC Court has taken note of above referred SCC Suit and given its finding that in case, the present SCC Suit is allowed, Rent Case No. 101 of 2016 (Prakhar Tandon vs. M/s Mehta Sai Das Jewelers) under Section 21(1)(a) of Uttar Pradesh Act No. 13 of 1972 as well as SCC Suit No. 288 of 2021 (Prakhar Tandon vs. M/s Mehta Sai Das Jewelers) shall become infructuous. 5. He firmly submitted that there is no whisper of SCC Suit No. 288 of 2021 in the pleadings of SCC Suit i.e. plaint, written submissions or replica. In fact, reference of SCC Suit No. 288 of 2021 is beyond the pleadings, therefore, considering the said suit, any finding returned by the SCC Court is bad and solely on this ground, order is liable to be set aside. 6. In fact, reference of SCC Suit No. 288 of 2021 is beyond the pleadings, therefore, considering the said suit, any finding returned by the SCC Court is bad and solely on this ground, order is liable to be set aside. 6. He next submitted that there is apparent error in order dated 02.02.2022 of SCC Court, therefore, petitioner-plaintiff has filed SCC Revision with this specific ground and surprisingly, Revisional Court while deciding the revision has admitted this fact that SCC Court has taken suo moto cognizance of SCC Suit No. 288 of 2021, which is bad, but rejected the SCC Revision. He further submitted that this fact has not been disputed by the counsel for respondent that facts of SCC Suit No. 288 of 2021 is beyond pleadings, therefore, once, this is the factual situation, both the orders are bad and liable to be set aside. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance upon the judgment of Apex Court in the matter of Sri Shivaji Balaram Haibatti vs. Sri Avinash Maruthi Pawar; 2017 0 Supreme(SC) 1109 and this Court in the matter of Girish Chandra Gupta vs. State of U.P.; 2005 0 Supreme (All) 1347. He also argued about the conduct of a Judge while deciding the case and ultimately submitted that if a Judge is having any personal interest in the matter or having personal knowledge of facts, he must recuse himself from the hearing of the case. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance of Division Bench judgment of High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla in the matter of Shri S.C. Kainthla vs. State of H.P. & Ors. (CWP Nos. 2061 of 2018 alongwith CWP 2292 of 2018) decided on 12.12.2018. 7. Per contra, Sri Vikash Mathur along with Sri Rajnish Sahai Saxena, learned counsel for respondent has not disputed this fact that facts of SCC Suit No. 288 of 2021 is not part of pleadings, but submitted that reference of SCC Suit No. 288 of 2021 is based upon the argument made by learned counsel for respondent-defendant, therefore, it cannot be said that SCC Court has taken suo moto cognizance. He firmly submitted that the said issue was not so relevant, therefore, even if it is beyond pleadings, this cannot be a ground for allowing the present petition. He firmly submitted that the said issue was not so relevant, therefore, even if it is beyond pleadings, this cannot be a ground for allowing the present petition. In support of his contention he has placed reliance upon the judgments of Apex Court in the matters of Ram Sarup Gupta (dead) by L.Rs. vs. Bishun Narai Inter College and others; (1987) 0 Supreme(SC) 409, Virendra Kashinath Ravat & Anr. vs. Vinayak N. Joshi & Ors.; (1998) 0 Supreme(SC) 1133, Bachhaj Nahar vs. Nilima Mandal & Anr.; (2008) 0 Supreme(SC) 1421 and State of Maharashtra vs. Ramdas Shrinivas Nayak and another; 1982 0 Supreme (SC) 131. 8. Earlier case was heard on 30.05.2024 and this Court has reserved the order to decide as to whether a counsel can argue a fact beyond pleadings or not. Further, a Judge can record a finding based upon his personal knowledge taking suo moto cognizance under the law or not. 9. I have considered the submissions advanced by counsels for parties, perused the records as well as judgments relied upon. 10. After summarizing the arguments, there are three questions, which are to be answered by this Court. (i) as to whether a counsel beyond the pleadings can place a fact before the Court based upon his personal knowledge ? (ii) as to whether a Judge while deciding the case can consider a fact, which is not the part of pleading and returns its finding upon that ? (iii) as to whether once Revisional Court has accepted that SCC Court has taken suo moto cognizance of the facts which are not the part of pleading and same is bad, can reject revision ? 11. The first issue is about the procedure and practice of argument by a counsel. There is no dispute on the point that any legal issue can be raised by a counsel before a Court either pleaded or not. Any provision of Constitution, Act, Statutes or Court made law i.e. judgments of Courts including Coordinate Court, High Courts or Supreme Court can be placed before the Court at any stage, for which no pleading is required. 12. So far as argument based upon facts are concerned, Counsel of a party is not supposed to know any facts beyond the pleadings. 12. So far as argument based upon facts are concerned, Counsel of a party is not supposed to know any facts beyond the pleadings. In fact, while representing a client, he is having only source of knowledge of facts arising out of pleadings and in case any fact is not pleaded in the pleadings, he cannot raise such facts before the Court based upon his personal knowledge. To bring any new facts before the Court, an affidavit is required to be filed by the plaintiff or defendant, as the case may be, alongwith opportunity of rebuttal to other side. In case any such facts are raised beyond the pleadings, same is absolutely bad, it is required on the part of Court to depreciate and reject the same. Therefore, this Court is of the firm view that a counsel cannot be given liberty to argue a fact before the Court which is not the part of pleadings and in case any such argument is made, that may be recorded by the Courts, but ultimately should have been rejected. If any order has been passed considering such facts, which are not pleaded, is bad and liable to be set aside. 13. Therefore, answer of the first question is that a counsel can not be permitted to argued a fact, which is not the part of pleadings. In case, it is argued, it is required on the part of Court to reject the same. 14. Now, coming to the second issue which pertains to the procedure and practice applicable to the Judge of a Court. One thing is common here that apart from law, Judge is supposed to know the facts only from the pleadings. Here, in the present case, there is no dispute on the point that SCC Suit No. 288 of 2021 is not part of the pleadings and it is argued by learned counsel for defendant. The said argument was recorded by the SCC Judge, but surprisingly, while deciding the suit, he was opined that in case present suit is allowed, Rent Case No. 101 of 2016 and SCC Suit No. 288 of 2021 shall become infructuous. Now, it is clear that SCC Judge has taken note of SCC Suit No. 288 of 2021 and decided the case to save the proceedings of SCC Suit No. 288 of 2021 also. Relevant part of judgment is being quoted below:- 15. Now, it is clear that SCC Judge has taken note of SCC Suit No. 288 of 2021 and decided the case to save the proceedings of SCC Suit No. 288 of 2021 also. Relevant part of judgment is being quoted below:- 15. Similar issue was before the Court in the matter of Girish Chandra Gupta (Supra) in which Court has held that without pleading, no one can be permitted to lead evidence beyond pleadings. Relevant paragraph no. 5 of the said judgment is quoted below:- "(5) BEFORE this Court, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners-tenants contended that the plea of Sub-section (4) of Section 20 of the Act being not available to the tenants-petitioners in view of the proviso to Section 20 (4) of the Act has neither been taken in the plaint, nor by way of any amendment, therefore the revisional court have gone beyond its jurisdiction in decreeing the suit filed by the landlord. It is settled law that without pleadings, no one can be permitted to led evidence beyond the pleadings. Learned counsel for the respondents-landlord referred to the plaint, which has been annexed as Annexure-CA I to the counter-affidavit. A perusal thereof reveals that there was no such plea that the petitioners-tenants are not entitled to get the benefit of Section 20 (4) of the Act, has been taken by the respondents-landlord. In this view of the matter, the orders passed by the trial court as well as by the revisional court deserve to be quashed and are hereby quashed. The matter will now go back to the trial court to decide the suit afresh in the light of the observations made in this judgment and in accordance with law." 16. This issue was also before the Apex Court in the matter of Sri Shivaji Balaram Haibatti (Supra) and the Apex Court has taken strict view that parties to the suit cannot travel beyond pleadings. Relevant paragraph no. 28 of the said judgment is quoted below:- "28. It is these issues, which were gone into by the two Courts and were concurrently decided by them against the respondent. These issues, in our opinion, should have been examined by the High Court with a view to find out as to whether these findings contain any legal error so as to call for any interference in second appeal. It is these issues, which were gone into by the two Courts and were concurrently decided by them against the respondent. These issues, in our opinion, should have been examined by the High Court with a view to find out as to whether these findings contain any legal error so as to call for any interference in second appeal. The High Court, however, did not undertake this exercise and rather affirmed these findings when it did not consider it proper to frame any substantial question of law. It is a settled principle of law that the parties to the suit cannot travel beyond the pleadings so also the Court cannot record any finding on the issues which are not part of pleadings. In other words, the Court has to record the findings only on the issues which are part of the pleadings on which parties are contesting the case. Any finding recorded on an issue de hors the pleadings is without jurisdiction. Such is the case here." 17. From the perusal of judgments of this Court as well as Apex Court, it is apparently clear that Courts cannot be permitted to travel beyond pleadings in the matter of facts and in case any finding recorded beyond pleadings and judgment given considering the same, such judgment is not sustainable. 18. Sri Vikash Mathur, learned counsel for respondent has placed reliance upon upon paragraph no. 6 of the judgment of Ram Sarup Gupta (Supra). From the perusal of paragraph no. 6 of the said judgment, it is apparently clear that fact of the case is entirely different and in that matter Apex Court has taken view that once the facts are known to the parties and evidence are also led in trial, absence of pleading cannot be a ground to reject the suit. Relevant paragraph no. 6 of the said judgment is quoted below:- "The question which falls for consideration is whether the respondents in their written statement have raised the necessary pleading that the license was irrevocable as contemplated by Section 60(b) of the Act and, if so, is there any evidence on record to support that plea. It is well settled that in the absence of pleading, evidence, if any, produced by the parties cannot be considered. It is well settled that in the absence of pleading, evidence, if any, produced by the parties cannot be considered. It is also equally settled that no party should be permitted to travel beyond its pleading and that all necessary and material facts should be pleaded by the party in support of the case set up by it. The object and purpose of pleading is to enable the adversary party to know the case it has to meet. In order to have a fair trial it is imperative that the party should state the essential material facts so that other party may not be taken by surprise. The pleadings however should receive a liberal construction, no pedantic approach should be adopted to defeat justice on hair splitting technicalities. Sometimes, pleadings are expressed in words which may not expressly make out a case in accordance with strict interpretation of law, in such a case it is the duty of the Court to ascertain the substance of the pleadings to determine the question. It is not desirable to place undue emphasis on form, instead the substance of the pleadings should be considered. Whenever the question about lack of pleading is raised the enquiry should not be so much about the form of the pleadings, instead; the court must find out whether in substance the parties knew the case and the issues upon which they went to trial. Once it is found that in spite of deficiency in the pleadings parties knew the case and they proceeded to trial on those issues by producing evidence, in that event it would not be open to a party to raise the question of absence of pleadings in appeal. In Bhagwati Prasad v. Shri Chandramaul, [1956] 1 SCR 286 a Constitution Bench of this Court considering this question observed: "If a plea is not specifically made and yet it is covered by an issue by implication, and the parties knew that the said plea was involved in the trial, then the mere fact that the plea was not expressly taken in the pleadings would not necessarily disentitle a party from relying upon if it is satisfactorily proved by evidence. The general rule no doubt is that the relief should be founded on pleadings made by the parties. The general rule no doubt is that the relief should be founded on pleadings made by the parties. But where the substantial matters relating to the title of both parties to the suit are touched, though indirectly or even obscurely in the issues, and evidence has been led about them, then the argument that a particular matter was not expressly taken in the pleadings would be purely formal and technical and cannot succeed in every case. What the Court has to consider in dealing with such an objection is: did the parties know that the matter in question was involved in the trial, and did they lead evidence about it? If it appears that the parties did not know that the matter was in issue at the trial and one of them has had no opportunity to lead evidence in respect of it, that undoubtedly would be a different matter. To allow one party to reply upon a matter in respect of which the other party did not lead evidence and has had no opportunity to lead evidence, would introduce considerations of prejudice, and in doing justice to one party, the Court cannot do injustice to another." ” 19. Another judgment relied by learned counsel for respondent is Bachhaj Nahar (Supra). Relevant paragraph nos. 10-11 of the said judgment is quoted below:- "10. The object of issues is to identify from the pleadings the questions or points required to be decided by the courts so as to enable parties to let in evidence thereon. When the facts necessary to make out a particular claim, or to seek a particular relief, are not found in the plaint, the court cannot focus the attention of the parties, or its own attention on that claim or relief, by framing an appropriate issue. As a result the defendant does not get an opportunity to place the facts and contentions necessary to repudiate or challenge such a claim or relief. Therefore, the court cannot, on finding that the plaintiff has not made out the case put forth by him, grant some other relief. The question before a court is not whether there is some material on the basis of which some relief can be granted. The question is whether any relief can be granted, when the defendant had no opportunity to show that the relief proposed by the court could not be granted. The question before a court is not whether there is some material on the basis of which some relief can be granted. The question is whether any relief can be granted, when the defendant had no opportunity to show that the relief proposed by the court could not be granted. When there is no prayer for a particular relief and no pleadings to support such a relief, and when defendant has no opportunity to resist or oppose such a relief, if the court considers and grants such a relief, it will lead to miscarriage of justice. Thus it is said that no amount of evidence, on a plea that is not put forward in the pleadings, can be looked into to grant any relief. The High Court has ignored the aforesaid principles relating to the object and necessity of pleadings. Even though right of easement was not pleaded or claimed by the plaintiffs, and even though parties were at issue only in regard to title and possession, it made out for the first time in second appeal, a case of easement and granted relief based on an easementary right. For this purpose, it relied upon the following observations of this Court in Nedunuri Kameswaramma v. Sampati Subba Rao [ AIR 1963 SC 884 ]: “No doubt, no issue was framed, and the one, which was framed, could have been more elaborate, but since the parties went to trial fully knowing the rival case and led all the evidence not only in support of their contentions but in refutation of those of the other side, it cannot be said that the absence of an issue was fatal to the case, or that there was that mistrial which vitiates proceedings. We are, therefore, of opinion that the suit could not be dismissed on this narrow ground, and also that there is no need for a remit, as the evidence which has been led in the case is sufficient to reach the right conclusion.” But the said observations were made in the context of absence of an issue, and not absence of pleadings. The relevant principle relating to circumstances in which the deficiency in, or absence of, pleadings could be ignored, was stated by a Constitution Bench of this Court in Bhagwati Prasad vs. Shri Chandramaul – AIR 1966 SC 735 : “If a plea is not specifically made and yet it is covered by an issue by implication, and the parties knew that the said plea was involved in the trial, then the mere fact that the plea was not expressly taken in the pleadings would not necessarily disentitle a party from relying upon if it is satisfactorily proved by evidence. The general rule no doubt is that the relief should be founded on pleadings made by the parties. But where the substantial matter relating to the title of both parties to the suit was touched, tough indirectly or even obscurely in the issues, and evidence has been led about them then the argument that a particular matter was not expressly taken in the pleadings would be purely formal and technical and cannot succeed in every case. What the Court has to consider in dealing with such an objection is : did the parties know that the matter in question was involved in the trial, and did they lead evidence about it? If it appears that the parties did not know that the matter was in issue at the trial and one of them has had no opportunity to lead evidence in respect of it, that undoubtedly would be a different matter. To allow one party to rely upon a matter in respect of which the other party did not lead evidence and has had no opportunity to lead evidence, would introduce considerations of prejudice, and in doing justice to one party, the Court cannot do injustice to another. The principle was reiterated by this Court in Ram Sarup Gupta (dead) by LRs. vs. Bishun Narain Inter College [ AIR 1987 SC 1242 ]: “It is well settled that in the absence of pleading, evidence, if any, produced by the parties cannot be considered. It is also equally settled that no party should be permitted to travel beyond its pleading and that all necessary and material facts should be pleaded by the party in support of the case set up by it. The object and purpose of pleading is to enable the adversary party to know the case it has to meet. It is also equally settled that no party should be permitted to travel beyond its pleading and that all necessary and material facts should be pleaded by the party in support of the case set up by it. The object and purpose of pleading is to enable the adversary party to know the case it has to meet. In order to have a fair trial it is imperative that the party should state the essential material facts so that other party may not be taken by surprise. The pleadings however should receive a liberal construction, no pedantic approach should be adopted to defeat justice on hair splitting technicalities. Sometimes, pleadings are expressed in words which may not expressly make out a case in accordance with strict interpretation of law, in such a case it is the duty of the court to ascertain the substance if the pleadings to determine the question. It is not desirable to place undue emphasis on form, instead the substance of the pleadings should be considered. Whenever the question about lack of pleading is raised the enquiry should not be so much about the form of pleadings, instead the court must find out whether in substance the parties knew the case and the issues upon which they went to trial. Once it is found that in spite of deficiency in the pleadings, parties knew the case and they proceeded to trial on those issue by producing evidence, in that event it would not be open to a party to raise the question of absence of pleadings in appeal." 20. In both the cases too, facts are entirely different and as per the facts of the case, parties are known to all facts, which are not pleaded and also proceeded to lead evidence, therefore, they cannot take ground of absence of pleadings. 21. He has also placed reliance upon the judgment of Virendra Kashinath Ravat (Supra). Relevant paragraph nos. 14 & 16 of the said judgment is quoted below:- "14. Learned Single Judge treated the aforesaid pleading as insufficient to make out a case for subletting. This was not a point considered by or even raised before the two fact finding forums. 21. He has also placed reliance upon the judgment of Virendra Kashinath Ravat (Supra). Relevant paragraph nos. 14 & 16 of the said judgment is quoted below:- "14. Learned Single Judge treated the aforesaid pleading as insufficient to make out a case for subletting. This was not a point considered by or even raised before the two fact finding forums. Order 6 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure (For short ’the Code’) confers powers on the Court to order a party to make a further statement or even a better statement or further and better particulars of any matter already mentioned in the pleading. This is incorporated in the Code to indicate that no suit shall be dismissed merely on the ground that more particulars are not stated in the pleadings. If the contesting respondents, or any of them had raised objection that the pleading was scanty perhaps appellants would have further elaborated it as provided in Rule 5 above. At any rate this should not have been a premise on which interference by the High Court should have been made in exercising a jurisdiction of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 15. That apart, the averment extracted above cannot by any standard be dubbed as bereft of sufficiency in pleading. Under Order 6 Rule 2(1) of the Code the requirement is the following: "Every pleading shall contain, and contain only, a statement in a concise form of the material facts on which the party pleading relies for his claim or defence, as the case may be, but not the evidence by which they are to be proved. 16. The object of the Rule is two-fold. First is to afford the other said intimation regarding the particular facts of his case so that they may be met by the other side. Second is to enable the court to determine what is really the issue between the parties. The words in the sub-rule "a statement in a concise form" are definitely suggestive that brevity should be adhered to while drafting pleadings. Of course brevity should not be at the cost of setting out necessary facts, but it does not mean niggling in the pleadings. If care is taken in the syntactic process, pleadings can be saved from tautology. The words in the sub-rule "a statement in a concise form" are definitely suggestive that brevity should be adhered to while drafting pleadings. Of course brevity should not be at the cost of setting out necessary facts, but it does not mean niggling in the pleadings. If care is taken in the syntactic process, pleadings can be saved from tautology. Elaboration of facts in pleadings is not the ideal measure and that is why the sub-rule embodied the words "and contain only" just before the succeeding words "a statement in a concise form of the material facts".” 22. Here also facts of the case are entirely different and having no relevance in the present case. 23. Lastly, he placed reliance upon the judgment of Apex Court in the matter of State of Maharashtra(Supra). Issue before the Apex Court was as to whether any concession given by the counsel before the Court and also recorded can be resile from the same or not. In the present matter, there is no such concession given by the counsel, but counsel brought a fact into the knowledge of the Court, which is beyond the pleadings and considering the same, order impugned has been passed. Therefore, this judgment is not relevant for present case. 24. In the present case, the issue is entirely different and creating doubt over the fairness and conduct of the Judge concerned, who has passed the order. It is undisputed between the parties that there is no reference of SCC Suit No. 288 of 2021 in the pleading and as per Sri Mathur, learned counsel for respondent, it was argued by counsel for defendant before the SCC Court. Once such is the situation, a Judge must have discard such arguments at the very threshold and certainly while deciding the issue that argument should not be taken care of. In the matter of Ram Sarup Gupta (Supra), Apex Court in a very strong words has said that parties in the suit cannot travel beyond pleadings. In fact such finding of facts beyond pleadings made by Court creates doubts and fairness of a Judge. In the case of Shri S.C. Kainthla (Supra), the Court has dealt in detail about the conduct and fairness of a Judge based upon the Principle that Judgeship should not only be done but must be seem to be done. Relevant paragraph no. In the case of Shri S.C. Kainthla (Supra), the Court has dealt in detail about the conduct and fairness of a Judge based upon the Principle that Judgeship should not only be done but must be seem to be done. Relevant paragraph no. 28 of the said judgment is quoted below:- "28. Hon’ble Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment has reiterated that impartiality is essential to the proper discharge of the judicial office. It applies not only to the decision itself but also to the process by which the decision is made. A judge shall ensure that his or her conduct, both in and out of court, maintains and enhances the confidence of the public, the legal profession and litigants in the impartiality of the judge and of the judiciary. A judge shall disqualify himself or herself from participating in any proceedings in which the judge is unable to decide the matter impartially or in which it may appear to a reasonable observer that the judge is unable to decide the matter impartially." 25. Therefore, in the light of law laid down by the Courts, answer of question no. 2 is that in case any fact is not part of pleadings, a Judge should never place reliance upon such facts while deciding the case. In case reliance is placed, judgment is bad and alone on this ground, liable to be set aside. 26. Now, coming to the third issue which is about the judgment of Revisional Court. Against the order dated 02.02.2022, revision was filed and in paragraph no. 15 of the judgment dated 18.08.2023, there is categorical finding of Revisional Court that SCC Court has taken suo moto cognizance of SCC Suit No. 288 of 2021 which is bad. Paragraph No. 15 of the judgment of Revisional Court dated 18.08.2023 is quoted below:- 27. Once, such is the finding, it is very surprising as to how revision has been rejected. In fact the judgment of Revisional Court is self-contradictory as on one hand, Revisional Court has taken a view that finding of SCC Court is bad and on other hand, rejected the revision, which is not permissible. 28. Therefore, answer of question no. 3 is that this Court is of the firm view that judgment of a Court cannot be contrary to its finding. 28. Therefore, answer of question no. 3 is that this Court is of the firm view that judgment of a Court cannot be contrary to its finding. While deciding any issue, a categorical and reasonable finding is required from the Court and based upon that, judgment has to be pronounced. Further, it is not permissible to give a contrary judgment not corroborating with the finding given. Therefore, such judgment of Revisional Court is bad and liable to be set aside. 29. In the light of observations made here-in above, impugned orders dated 02.02.2022 & 18.08.2023 are bad and hereby set aside. 30. Matter is remanded back to Judge, Small Cause Court, Kanpur Nagar to decide SCC Suit No. 72 of 2015 afresh, maximum within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. 31. With the aforesaid observations, writ petition is allowed. 32. No order as to costs.