Smt Munni Devi v. Jagdish Prasad Pandey

:Atul Srivastava :Rajesh Kumar Gautam Court No. - 37 HON'BLE CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.

#1. Heard Mr. Atul Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Rajesh Kumar Gautam, learned counsel for landlord-respondent.

#2. Brief facts of the case are that SCC Suit filed by respondent/ landlord was decreed by the Judge Small Cause vide judgement & decree dated

28.8.2018. Against the judgment & decree of Judge Small Cause dated

28.8.2018, revision under Section 25 of Provincial Small Cause Court Act, 1887 was filed on behalf of the petitioner/ tenant which was registered as SCC Revision No.101 of 2018. In the aforementioned revision, an application (22ga) under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed, which was rejected by the revisional Court vide order dated 17.2.2020, accordingly, petition was filed before this Court which was registered as Matter Under Article 227 No.1296 of 2021. This Court vide order dated 30.7.2024 dismissed the aforementioned petition. After dismissal of the petition by this Court another application under Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure was filed on behalf of the petitioner / tenant which was registered as application (43 ga2). Additional District Judge Court No.11, Kanpur Nagar rejected the application (43 ga2) vide order dated 11.8.2025. Hence this petition on behalf of the petitioner for the following relief: "i. to set aside the impugned judgement and order dated 11.8.2025 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No.11, Kanpur Nagar-respondent no.1 (Annexure No.1 to the petition). 2 A227 No. 11176 of 2025 ii. to direct the learned Additional District Judge, Court No.11, Kanpur Nagar- respondent no.1 to accept the original rent receipt."

#3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Application (43 ga2) filed by the petitioner has been rejected in arbitrary manner without considering the case of the petitioner in proper manner. He further submitted that the petitioner by way of application (43 ga2) has prayed that copy of the receipt / challan as well as original document may be taken on record as they will be helpful for proper adjudication of the pending dispute in revision but the revisional Court has dismissed the petitioner's application in arbitrary manner. He further submitted that the impugned order should be set aside and the application (43 ga2) filed by the petitioner should be allowed.

#4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the landlord-respondent submitted that in order to linger on the proceeding the petitioner has filed another application under Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure as the petition under Article 227 filed by the petitioner was dismissed against the order rejecting the application under Order 41 Rule 27 of Code of Civil Procedure. He further submitted that revision filed by the respondent/ landlord is pending for the last more than 7 years, as such, the necessary direction be issued to the revisional Court to decide the revision expeditiously in accordance with law.

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

#6. There is no dispute about the fact that SCC Suit filed by the respondent/ landlord was decreed in the year 2018 and revision under Section 25 of Provincial Small Cause Court Act, 1887 filed by the petitioner is pending for last more than 7 years. There is also no dispute about the fact that application under Order 41 Rule 27 of Code of Civil Procedure filed by the petitioner was rejected and petition under Article 227 filed by the petitioner was dismissed but again application under Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure has been filed which has been rejected under the impugned order.

#7. Considering the judgement & decree passed by the Judge Small Cause 3 A227 No. 11176 of 2025 and the order rejecting the application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, there is no illegality in rejecting the subsequent application filed by the petitioner under Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure.

#8. No interference is required in the matter.

#9. The instant petition is dismissed and revisional Court is directed to decide the pending Revision No.101 of 2018 (Smt. Munni Devi vs. Shri Jagdish Prasad Pandey), under Section 25 of Provincial Small Cause Court Act, 1887 after affording proper opportunity of hearing to the parties, expeditiously preferably within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. September 17, 2025 Rameez (Chandra Kumar Rai,J.) RAMEEZ AHMED High Court of Judicature at Allahabad