Sanjeev Garg v. M/s Kamax Beauty Pvt. Ltd.)

1. Heard Mr. Santosh Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Nipun Singh, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. Brief facts of the case are that SCC Suit has been filed by plaintiff- respondent in the Court of Judge Small Cause which has been registered as SCC Suit No.5 of 2024. In the aforementioned suit, an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure has been filed on behalf of the petitioner. Judge Small Cause vide order dated 17.2.2025 dismissed the application filed on behalf of the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure, hence this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India before this Court for the following reliefs: "i. set aside the impugned order dated 17.2.2025 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court no.3, Gautam Budh Nagar in SCC Suit No.5 of 2024 (Sanjeev Garg Vs. M/s Kamax Beauty Pvt. Ltd.) (Annexure No.1). ii. Direct the plaintiff/ respondent not interfere in peaceful possession of the defendant/ petitioner and also restrain the plaintiff neither alienate the petitioner from the property in dispute nor sale the aforesaid property in question to any other persons during pendency of the present petition before this Hon'ble Court."

3. On 28.7.2025 following order was passed by this Court: "1. Mr. Nipun Singh, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that petition under Article 227 is not maintainable as petitioner can file revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act, 1887.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner shall address the court regarding the preliminary objection raised by learned counsel for the respondents regarding the maintainability of the writ petition.

3. Put up this matter as fresh on 6.08.2025 "

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that alternative remedy, if any, against the order impugned will not be bar for the petitioner in view of the law laid down by this Court in the case reported in 2019 (1) ADJ 327, U.P. Rajkiya Nirman Ltd. (Uprnnl) vs. M/s. C & C Construction Ltd. and Another as well as by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 1775, Raj Shri Agrawal @ Ram Shri Agrawal & Another vs. Sudheer Mohan & Others. He further submitted that the ground has been taken in the application itself for allowing the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure but the Judge Small Cause Court has illegally rejected the application, as such, the impugned order should be set aside. He further submitted that in absence of the interim order in the instant petition, the Judge Small Cause has passed the subsequent order dated 28.4.2025 closing the opportunity of the petitioner to file written statement.

5. Mr. Nipun Singh, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the order is revisable, as such, the instant petition cannot be entertained. He further submitted that there is no illegality in the order rejecting the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure as the Court has assigned proper reason in rejecting the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure. He further submitted that SCC suit filed before Judge Small Cause is maintainable. He further submitted that petitioner is not paying the rent to the landlord and making hindrance in the expeditious disposal of the SCC suit filed by landlord/ respondent. He placed the provisions contained under Section 11 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 in support of his argument. He further placed judgment of this Court passed in the Matter Under Article 227 No.2442 of 2017 on the scope of the proceeding under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. He further submitted that the instant petition should be dismissed with cost.

6. I have considered the argument advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

7. There is no dispute about the fact that SCC suit filed by landlord/ respondent is pending before the Judge Small Cause and the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed on behalf of the petitioner has been dismissed under the impugned order dated 17.2.2025.

8. Considering the order impugned passed by the Judge Small Cause rejecting the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, there is no scope of interference for this Court to interfere with the order impugned passed by the Judge Small Cause rejecting the Application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure and directing the petitioner to file written statement/ framing of issues in the small cause suit.

9. Judge Small Cause Court vide subsequent order dated 18.4.2025 has closed the opportunity of the petitioner to file written statement but order dated 18.4.2025 has not challenged in the instant petition, as such, petitioner has liberty to file application before the Judge Small Cause for recalling of the order dated 28.4.2025.

10. Considering the entire facts and circumstances, the instant writ petition against the impugned order dated 17.2.2025 passed by Judge Small Cause rejecting the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of Civil Procedure Code is dismissed. Petitioners will file application for recalling the order dated 28.4.2025 before the Judge Small Cause within period of three weeks from today which shall be considered liberally by the Judge Small Cause. Judge Small Cause Court shall decide the aforementioned suit in accordance with law after affording proper opportunity of hearing to the parties, expeditiously preferably within a period of six months from the date of production of certified copy of this order before him. Order Date :- 6.8.2025 Rameez RAMEEZ AHMED High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Heard Mr. Santosh Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Nipun Singh, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. Brief facts of the case are that SCC Suit has been filed by plaintiff- respondent in the Court of Judge Small Cause which has been registered as SCC Suit No.5 of 2024. In the aforementioned suit, an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure has been filed on behalf of the petitioner. Judge Small Cause vide order dated 17.2.2025 dismissed the application filed on behalf of the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure, hence this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India before this Court for the following reliefs: "i. set aside the impugned order dated 17.2.2025 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court no.3, Gautam Budh Nagar in SCC Suit No.5 of 2024 (Sanjeev Garg Vs. M/s Kamax Beauty Pvt. Ltd.) (Annexure No.1). ii. Direct the plaintiff/ respondent not interfere in peaceful possession of the defendant/ petitioner and also restrain the plaintiff neither alienate the petitioner from the property in dispute nor sale the aforesaid property in question to any other persons during pendency of the present petition before this Hon'ble Court."

3. On 28.7.2025 following order was passed by this Court: "1. Mr. Nipun Singh, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that petition under Article 227 is not maintainable as petitioner can file revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act, 1887.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner shall address the court regarding the preliminary objection raised by learned counsel for the respondents regarding the maintainability of the writ petition.

3. Put up this matter as fresh on 6.08.2025 "

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that alternative remedy, if any, against the order impugned will not be bar for the petitioner in view of the law laid down by this Court in the case reported in 2019 (1) ADJ 327, U.P. Rajkiya Nirman Ltd. (Uprnnl) vs. M/s. C & C Construction Ltd. and Another as well as by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 1775, Raj Shri Agrawal @ Ram Shri Agrawal & Another vs. Sudheer Mohan & Others. He further submitted that the ground has been taken in the application itself for allowing the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure but the Judge Small Cause Court has illegally rejected the application, as such, the impugned order should be set aside. He further submitted that in absence of the interim order in the instant petition, the Judge Small Cause has passed the subsequent order dated 28.4.2025 closing the opportunity of the petitioner to file written statement.

5. Mr. Nipun Singh, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the order is revisable, as such, the instant petition cannot be entertained. He further submitted that there is no illegality in the order rejecting the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure as the Court has assigned proper reason in rejecting the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure. He further submitted that SCC suit filed before Judge Small Cause is maintainable. He further submitted that petitioner is not paying the rent to the landlord and making hindrance in the expeditious disposal of the SCC suit filed by landlord/ respondent. He placed the provisions contained under Section 11 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 in support of his argument. He further placed judgment of this Court passed in the Matter Under Article 227 No.2442 of 2017 on the scope of the proceeding under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. He further submitted that the instant petition should be dismissed with cost.

6. I have considered the argument advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

7. There is no dispute about the fact that SCC suit filed by landlord/ respondent is pending before the Judge Small Cause and the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed on behalf of the petitioner has been dismissed under the impugned order dated 17.2.2025.

8. Considering the order impugned passed by the Judge Small Cause rejecting the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, there is no scope of interference for this Court to interfere with the order impugned passed by the Judge Small Cause rejecting the Application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure and directing the petitioner to file written statement/ framing of issues in the small cause suit.

9. Judge Small Cause Court vide subsequent order dated 18.4.2025 has closed the opportunity of the petitioner to file written statement but order dated 18.4.2025 has not challenged in the instant petition, as such, petitioner has liberty to file application before the Judge Small Cause for recalling of the order dated 28.4.2025.

10. Considering the entire facts and circumstances, the instant writ petition against the impugned order dated 17.2.2025 passed by Judge Small Cause rejecting the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of Civil Procedure Code is dismissed. Petitioners will file application for recalling the order dated 28.4.2025 before the Judge Small Cause within period of three weeks from today which shall be considered liberally by the Judge Small Cause. Judge Small Cause Court shall decide the aforementioned suit in accordance with law after affording proper opportunity of hearing to the parties, expeditiously preferably within a period of six months from the date of production of certified copy of this order before him. Order Date :- 6.8.2025 Rameez RAMEEZ AHMED High Court of Judicature at Allahabad