Uma Shankar Sharma v. Thakur Ballabh Sri Kishori Ji Maharaj

: Ankur Goyal, Arvind Srivastava : Court No. - 37 HON'BLE CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.

1. Heard Mr. Arvind Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. Brief facts of the case are that SCC Suit No. 563 of 2023 was filed by respondent before the Judge Small Cause for eviction of the defendant from the property in dispute as well as for arrears of rent w.e.f. 1.1.2021 to June 2023. Petitioner has filed his written statement in the aforementioned suit. During pendency of the suit on behalf of the petitioner, two applications were filed which were marked as paper No. 25 Ga and 27 Ga. Objection was filed on behalf plaintiff/ respondent to the application 25-Ga and 27-Ga. Trial Court vide order dated 23.7.2024 dismissed the application 25-Ga and 27-Ga filed by petitioner. The order dated 23.7.2024 was challenged by petitioner in revision and revisional Court dismissed the petitioner's revision vide order dated 3.12.2024 hence this petition for the following reliefs:- "(i) Set aside the order dated 23.7.2024 passed by Civil Judge (J.D.)/ Judge Small Cause Mathura in S.C.C. Suit No. 563 of 2023, and order dated 3.12.2024 passed by District Judge Mathura in S.C.C. Revision No. 125 of 2024, Uma Shankar Sharma Vs. Thakur Ballabh Sri Kishori Ji Maharaj. (ii) Direct the Civil Judge (J.D.)/ Judge Small Cause Mathura to allow the petitioner's applications paper No. 25-Ga and 27-Ga."

3. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of the averment made 2 A227 No. 8995 of 2025 in the written statement, the application 25-Ga and 27-Ga were filed for taking certain documents on record as well as for production of certain document by the plaintiff which will be helpful in the proper adjudication of dispute involved in the matter but the Trial Court as well as revisional Court have illegally rejected the application/ revision without considering the case of the petitioner as set up in the application and revision. He submitted that impugned order should be set aside and applications 25-Ga and 27-Ga filed by petitioner should be allowed.

4. I have considered the argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

5. There is no dispute about the fact that SCC suit filed by plaintiff/ respondent is pending before Judge Small Cause since 2023. There is also no dispute about the fact that application 25-Ga and 27-Ga filed by defendant/ petitioner have been rejected under the impugned order. There is also no dispute about the fact that revision filed by petitioner has also been dismissed.

6. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the matter, the perusal of the relevant paragraph no.37 the written statement will be relevant which is as under:- "37 -यह िक यादी सं० 1 की सम्पि्त को लेकर पूवर् सेवायत महंत िबहारी शरण दास के समय कु छ अन्य ्िि्वयों के ्षारा वाद-िववाद िकया गया था िक िजस वजह से वादी सं० 1 की सम्पि्त में रह रहे सभी िकरायेदारों के सहयोग से उ्व वाद-िववाद का समाधान कराया गया तथा वादी सं० 1 के िहत को देखते हुए महंत राधा वल्लभ शरण के देहावसान के प्ाात एक सिमित मंिदर ठा० ्शी िकशोरी बल्लभ सुधार सिमित का गठन िकया गया था िक िजस सिमित का उ्देश्य वादी सं० 1 की कु ल सम्पि्त का समुिचत ्ऺकार से ्ऺबंधन व देखभाल करने के साथ-साथ उ्व कु ल सम्पि्त में रह रहे समस्त िकरायेदारों के िहतों की र्षा करना भी था िक िजस वजह से उ्व सिमित के संचालन हेतु एक बैंक सेन््िल बैंक ऑफ इिण्डया में वादी सं० 1 के िहताथर् एक खाता भी खुलवाया गया िक िजस खाते के संचालन के िलये वादी सं0 2 के साथ-साथ वादी सं० उ्तरदेय ्ऺितवादी के िपता स्व० िवदुर देव शमार् को भी नािमत िकया गया था लेिकन उ्तरदेय ्ऺितवादी के िपता िवदुर देव के देहावसान के प्ाात से वादी सं० 2 ने अपने स्वाथों की पूित हेतु उ्व सिमित का समुिचत संचालन सही ्ऺकार से नही िकया है तथा वादी सं० 1 के िहताथर् बनाये गये खाते का भी समुिचत ्ऺकार से संचालन या कोई िहसाब-िकताब वादी स० 2 ्षारा स्वंय नही 3 A227 No. 8995 of 2025 िकया जा रहा है तथा अपने ्िि्वगत स्वाथॏल के चलते वादी सं० 1 के िहतों के िवपरीत वादी सं० 2 अनर्गल िकया-कलापों में िलप्त है तथा अपने िनजी स्वाथर्वश उ्व वादी सं० 2 के ्षारा झूठे तथ्यो के आधार पर वादी सं० 1 की सम्पि्त में रह रहे तमाम िकरोयदारों के िखलाफ झूठे तथ्यों के आधार पर मुकदमे ्ऺस्तुत कर रखे हैं और अपनी इसी बदनीयती और आदत से मजबूर होकर अपने मेल के लोगों को लाभ पहुँचाने की गरज से उ्व वाद ्ऺस्तुत कर िदया है।"

7. The perusal of the averment made in para No. 37 of the written statement demonstrate that defendant/ petitioner has already stated necessary fact in para No. 37 of the written statement which will be examined by Judge Small Cause in proper manner, as such, there is no illegality in the impugned order rejecting the application 25-Ga and 27-Ga filed by petitioner.

8. Considering the aforementioned facts and circumstances of the case, no interference is required against the impugned order dated 23.7.2024 and

3.12.2024.

10. The petition is dismissed with liberty to petitioner/ defendant to raise his plea in the pending SCC suit in view of the averment made in para No. 37 of the writ petition in proper manner which will be considered by the Small Cause Court in accordance with law while deciding the SCC suit finally. It is also made clear that the order passed on the petitioner's application 25-Ga and 27-Ga will not prejudice the claim of the petitioner/ defendant in view of the averment made in paragraph no. 37 of the written statement. September 17, 2025 Vandana Y. (Chandra Kumar Rai,J.) VANDANA YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

: Ankur Goyal, Arvind Srivastava : Court No. - 37 HON'BLE CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.

1. Heard Mr. Arvind Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. Brief facts of the case are that SCC Suit No. 563 of 2023 was filed by respondent before the Judge Small Cause for eviction of the defendant from the property in dispute as well as for arrears of rent w.e.f. 1.1.2021 to June 2023. Petitioner has filed his written statement in the aforementioned suit. During pendency of the suit on behalf of the petitioner, two applications were filed which were marked as paper No. 25 Ga and 27 Ga. Objection was filed on behalf plaintiff/ respondent to the application 25-Ga and 27-Ga. Trial Court vide order dated 23.7.2024 dismissed the application 25-Ga and 27-Ga filed by petitioner. The order dated 23.7.2024 was challenged by petitioner in revision and revisional Court dismissed the petitioner's revision vide order dated 3.12.2024 hence this petition for the following reliefs:- "(i) Set aside the order dated 23.7.2024 passed by Civil Judge (J.D.)/ Judge Small Cause Mathura in S.C.C. Suit No. 563 of 2023, and order dated 3.12.2024 passed by District Judge Mathura in S.C.C. Revision No. 125 of 2024, Uma Shankar Sharma Vs. Thakur Ballabh Sri Kishori Ji Maharaj. (ii) Direct the Civil Judge (J.D.)/ Judge Small Cause Mathura to allow the petitioner's applications paper No. 25-Ga and 27-Ga."

3. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of the averment made 2 A227 No. 8995 of 2025 in the written statement, the application 25-Ga and 27-Ga were filed for taking certain documents on record as well as for production of certain document by the plaintiff which will be helpful in the proper adjudication of dispute involved in the matter but the Trial Court as well as revisional Court have illegally rejected the application/ revision without considering the case of the petitioner as set up in the application and revision. He submitted that impugned order should be set aside and applications 25-Ga and 27-Ga filed by petitioner should be allowed.

4. I have considered the argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

5. There is no dispute about the fact that SCC suit filed by plaintiff/ respondent is pending before Judge Small Cause since 2023. There is also no dispute about the fact that application 25-Ga and 27-Ga filed by defendant/ petitioner have been rejected under the impugned order. There is also no dispute about the fact that revision filed by petitioner has also been dismissed.

6. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the matter, the perusal of the relevant paragraph no.37 the written statement will be relevant which is as under:- "37 -यह िक यादी सं० 1 की सम्पि्त को लेकर पूवर् सेवायत महंत िबहारी शरण दास के समय कु छ अन्य ्िि्वयों के ्षारा वाद-िववाद िकया गया था िक िजस वजह से वादी सं० 1 की सम्पि्त में रह रहे सभी िकरायेदारों के सहयोग से उ्व वाद-िववाद का समाधान कराया गया तथा वादी सं० 1 के िहत को देखते हुए महंत राधा वल्लभ शरण के देहावसान के प्ाात एक सिमित मंिदर ठा० ्शी िकशोरी बल्लभ सुधार सिमित का गठन िकया गया था िक िजस सिमित का उ्देश्य वादी सं० 1 की कु ल सम्पि्त का समुिचत ्ऺकार से ्ऺबंधन व देखभाल करने के साथ-साथ उ्व कु ल सम्पि्त में रह रहे समस्त िकरायेदारों के िहतों की र्षा करना भी था िक िजस वजह से उ्व सिमित के संचालन हेतु एक बैंक सेन््िल बैंक ऑफ इिण्डया में वादी सं० 1 के िहताथर् एक खाता भी खुलवाया गया िक िजस खाते के संचालन के िलये वादी सं0 2 के साथ-साथ वादी सं० उ्तरदेय ्ऺितवादी के िपता स्व० िवदुर देव शमार् को भी नािमत िकया गया था लेिकन उ्तरदेय ्ऺितवादी के िपता िवदुर देव के देहावसान के प्ाात से वादी सं० 2 ने अपने स्वाथों की पूित हेतु उ्व सिमित का समुिचत संचालन सही ्ऺकार से नही िकया है तथा वादी सं० 1 के िहताथर् बनाये गये खाते का भी समुिचत ्ऺकार से संचालन या कोई िहसाब-िकताब वादी स० 2 ्षारा स्वंय नही 3 A227 No. 8995 of 2025 िकया जा रहा है तथा अपने ्िि्वगत स्वाथॏल के चलते वादी सं० 1 के िहतों के िवपरीत वादी सं० 2 अनर्गल िकया-कलापों में िलप्त है तथा अपने िनजी स्वाथर्वश उ्व वादी सं० 2 के ्षारा झूठे तथ्यो के आधार पर वादी सं० 1 की सम्पि्त में रह रहे तमाम िकरोयदारों के िखलाफ झूठे तथ्यों के आधार पर मुकदमे ्ऺस्तुत कर रखे हैं और अपनी इसी बदनीयती और आदत से मजबूर होकर अपने मेल के लोगों को लाभ पहुँचाने की गरज से उ्व वाद ्ऺस्तुत कर िदया है।"

7. The perusal of the averment made in para No. 37 of the written statement demonstrate that defendant/ petitioner has already stated necessary fact in para No. 37 of the written statement which will be examined by Judge Small Cause in proper manner, as such, there is no illegality in the impugned order rejecting the application 25-Ga and 27-Ga filed by petitioner.

8. Considering the aforementioned facts and circumstances of the case, no interference is required against the impugned order dated 23.7.2024 and

3.12.2024.

10. The petition is dismissed with liberty to petitioner/ defendant to raise his plea in the pending SCC suit in view of the averment made in para No. 37 of the writ petition in proper manner which will be considered by the Small Cause Court in accordance with law while deciding the SCC suit finally. It is also made clear that the order passed on the petitioner's application 25-Ga and 27-Ga will not prejudice the claim of the petitioner/ defendant in view of the averment made in paragraph no. 37 of the written statement. September 17, 2025 Vandana Y. (Chandra Kumar Rai,J.) VANDANA YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad