Smt. Neeta Agarwal Smt. Kamlesh Mittal And Another v. Revisionist(s) .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Bal Keshwar Srivastava, Aniket Srivastav, Desh Deepak

and Shri Vaibhav Dixit, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The instant revision has been preferred under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act, 1987 assailing the order dated

08.10.2025, whereby an application for recall, preferred by the revisionist, has been dismissed by the trial Court.

3. The submission of the learned counsel for the revisionist is that a S.C.C. Suit for arrears of rent and ejectment was instituted by the respondents. In the said suit, the revisionist had earlier appeared and filed his written statement, however, thereafter, the revisionist did not appear, which culminated in an ex-parte judgment and decree dated 01.04.2023.

4. The revisionist had moved an application for recall which was allowed by the Court on 13.03.2024 on payment of a cost of Rs.3,000/-. Thereafter, the matter was proceedings before the trial Court i.e. Additional District Judge, Court No.3, Lucknow (Acting as S.C.C. Court). The parties had appeared before the said Court on 05.11.2022, 28.11.2022 and thereafter the next date fixed was 17.12.2022. In the interim period on

14.12.2022, the case was transferred from the Court of Additional District Judge, Court No.3, Lucknow to the Additional District Judge, Court No.5, Lucknow. 2 SCCR No. 16 of 2025

5. It is the case of the revisionist that after the matter was transferred to the Court of Additional District Judge, Court No.5, Lucknow, the revisionist was not aware of the said transfer nor she appeared. However, it has further been pointed out that there was no compliance of Rule 89-A of the General Rules (Civil), 1957 (in short, 'the GRC').

6. The trial Court had directed the respondents herein to ensure service on the revisionist, however, no such steps were taken by the respondents, ultimately, without complying with the said repeated directions, an application for publication was moved on 28.09.2023. No formal order allowing the said application was passed. However, it is stated that the said publication is said to have been made in a local daily, namely, "Vichar Bindu" on 20.08.2023. The said service was found complaint and it was observed by the trial Court that the revisionist was served and thereafter it proceeded with the matter ex-parte and it came to be decided on 13.12.2024. The revisionist becoming aware of the same filed an application for recall on 13.01.2025, which after contest, has been dismissed by the impugned order.

7. It is urged that the trial Court committed an error in failing to notice that despite repeated orders for complying with the order of taking steps, it was not done. Out of the blue, an application for publication was moved which in the given facts and circumstances could not have been allowed and moreover as the record would indicate that there is no formal order of allowing the application for publication, yet the same has been taken as a ground to impute service on the revisionist coupled with the fact that the alleged daily wherein the summons is said to have been published does not have a worthwhile circulation.

8. In the given facts and circumstances, the trial Court committed a grave error in ignoring this material to reject the application despite the fact that irrespective whether the respondents had taken steps or not, it was also an obligation of the Court concerned to be satisfied itself regarding the compliance of Rule 89-A of GRC and in absence thereof, the order impugned cannot be sustained.

9. Shri Dixit, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has 3 SCCR No. 16 of 2025 vehemently urged that this is nothing but a dilatory tactics on behalf of the tenant where repeated attempts are made to delay the proceedings which was initiated in the year 2011.

10. It is also urged that the respondents had to approach the High Court on more than one occasion to get an order of expedition and the last expedition order was passed by the High Court on 01.11.2023 and noticing the aforesaid, the trial Court has passed the order, which cannot be said to be bad especially looking into the conduct of the revisionist.

11. It is also urged that the revisionist was very well aware of the transfer order and though the learned counsel for the revisionist had put in appearance before the Court of Additional District Judge, Court No.5, Lucknow, where the matter was transferred, but they were watching the proceedings without formal endorsements on the order-sheets waiting for the Court to proceed and in the aforesaid circumstances that the attempt of the revisionist is nothing but to soil the solemn proceedings of the Court. Accordingly, the revision deserves to be dismissed.

12. The Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and at the outset, the Court had asked the learned counsel for the respondents as to whether they wish to file their formal written response to which it was fairly urged that the matter be decided on the basis of the material available on record. It is in this view that the Court has proceeded to hear the learned counsel for the parties and the revision is being decided at the admission stage itself with their consent.

13. Considering the facts and circumstances as well as from a perusal of the extracts of the order-sheets, which have been provided to the Court for perusal and it is noted that Shri Dixit, learned counsel for the respondents, does not dispute the said order-sheets. Accordingly, having examined the same, it would indicate that on 28.11.2022, the matter was listed before the Court of Additional District Judge, Court No.3, Lucknow for disposal of an application bearing Paper-No.C-80. The next date fixed was

17.12.2022, however, in the interregnum, on 14.12.2022, the case was transferred from the Court of Additional District Judge, Court No.3, Lucknow to the Court of Additional District Judge, Court No.5, Lucknow. 4 SCCR No. 16 of 2025

14. The extracts of the order-sheets, which have been provided to the Court, would further indicate that the revisionist had not been appearing nor her counsel and noticing the same, the transferee Court i.e. Additional District Judge, Court No.5, Lucknow had directed the respondents (the plaintiffs before the trial Court) to take steps regarding service on the revisionist herein. The order-sheets also indicate that on 17.05.2023, none had appeared before the Court and the matter was adjourned for

25.07.2023. It was also indicated that the respondents herein would comply with the earlier orders i.e. relating to the state for service on the revisionist.

15. The record further indicates that on 25.07.2023 an application was moved by the respondents herein seeking to serve the revisionist through publication. As far as the order-sheets, which have been produced before the Court, it could not be shown by the learned counsel for the respondents as to by which order, the application for publication was allowed.

16. This assumes significance for two reasons (i) unless there is an order allowing the application for publication, the publication could not have been made and even if it was, it could not have been made the basis of proceeding ex-parte against the revisionist; (ii) even if at all this aspect is ignored for a moment, but the fact still remains that the trial Court had already directed the respondents to take steps for serving the revisionist, which was not complied with and unless and until the Court would have recorded its subjective satisfaction that the earlier orders passed by the Court had been complied with, yet the service could not be affected only then an order of substituted service could have been passed, which unfortunately is conspicuous absent from the record.

17. It is in this view that thereafter the matter was proceeded, which culminated in ex-parte order dated 13.12.2024. As far as the order passed by the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India bearing Writ Petition No.2740 of 2023 (A-227), whereby the proceedings were expedited vide order dated 01.11.2023 is concerned, suffice it to state that it only recorded that the trial Court to proceed expeditiously after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties and it also put a caveat 5 SCCR No. 16 of 2025 that it would be subjected that if there is no legal impediment, therefore, the protection cannot be claimed by the respondents from the order passed by the High Court inasmuch as it had to be noticed whether the revisionist was duly served or not. Even though the trial Court had directed the respondents to take steps and admittedly the same was not done, it was yet again the duty of the Court to ensure that compliance of Rule 89-A of GRC should have been attempted but there is nothing on record to indicate that such a course of action was adopted by the revisional Court.

18. For the aforesaid reasons, apparently, it cannot be said that the revisionist was aware of the proceedings or the application moved by the revisionist, registered as Misc. Case No.42/2025, was per se, a dilatory tactics.

19. This Court having taken note of the aforesaid is satisfied that the premise upon which the trial Court has proceeded has no basis and it could not be made a ground to reject the application for recall.

20. Considering the facts and circumstances, the order impugned dated

08.10.2025 cannot be sustained and is accordingly set aside. The application for recall shall stands allowed on payment of a cost of Rs.15,000/- to be paid by the revisionist to the respondents, within a period of two weeks from today. In case, if the cost is paid within the aforesaid period of two weeks, the suit shall stands restored on the Board of the Additional District Judge, Court No.5, Lucknow, where the parties shall appear on 01.12.2025.

21. Considering the earlier orders passed by the High Court to expedite the proceedings, this Court further observes that since the written statement of the revisionist is already on record, it will be open for the revisionist to file his evidence on the date fixed by the Court and all endeavour would be made to conclude the evidence at the earliest and for the aforesaid purpose, the Court shall take up the matter on weekly basis. No unnecessary adjournments would be granted, however, in case of any exceptional circumstances, if an adjournment has to be granted, then it shall be occasioned with appropriate costs. The trial Court would also make an endeavour to decide the matter expeditiously, so that, the entire 6 SCCR No. 16 of 2025 proceedings can come to an end by 31.01.2026 at the outside.

22. It is made clear that this Court has not made any observations insofar as the merits of the case is concerned, which shall be considered and decided by the trial Court.

23. With the aforesaid, the revision is allowed in the aforesaid terms. November 6, 2025 Rakesh/- (Jaspreet Singh,J.) RAKESH PRAJAPAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

and Shri Vaibhav Dixit, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The instant revision has been preferred under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act, 1987 assailing the order dated

08.10.2025, whereby an application for recall, preferred by the revisionist, has been dismissed by the trial Court.

3. The submission of the learned counsel for the revisionist is that a S.C.C. Suit for arrears of rent and ejectment was instituted by the respondents. In the said suit, the revisionist had earlier appeared and filed his written statement, however, thereafter, the revisionist did not appear, which culminated in an ex-parte judgment and decree dated 01.04.2023.

4. The revisionist had moved an application for recall which was allowed by the Court on 13.03.2024 on payment of a cost of Rs.3,000/-. Thereafter, the matter was proceedings before the trial Court i.e. Additional District Judge, Court No.3, Lucknow (Acting as S.C.C. Court). The parties had appeared before the said Court on 05.11.2022, 28.11.2022 and thereafter the next date fixed was 17.12.2022. In the interim period on

14.12.2022, the case was transferred from the Court of Additional District Judge, Court No.3, Lucknow to the Additional District Judge, Court No.5, Lucknow. 2 SCCR No. 16 of 2025

5. It is the case of the revisionist that after the matter was transferred to the Court of Additional District Judge, Court No.5, Lucknow, the revisionist was not aware of the said transfer nor she appeared. However, it has further been pointed out that there was no compliance of Rule 89-A of the General Rules (Civil), 1957 (in short, 'the GRC').

6. The trial Court had directed the respondents herein to ensure service on the revisionist, however, no such steps were taken by the respondents, ultimately, without complying with the said repeated directions, an application for publication was moved on 28.09.2023. No formal order allowing the said application was passed. However, it is stated that the said publication is said to have been made in a local daily, namely, "Vichar Bindu" on 20.08.2023. The said service was found complaint and it was observed by the trial Court that the revisionist was served and thereafter it proceeded with the matter ex-parte and it came to be decided on 13.12.2024. The revisionist becoming aware of the same filed an application for recall on 13.01.2025, which after contest, has been dismissed by the impugned order.

7. It is urged that the trial Court committed an error in failing to notice that despite repeated orders for complying with the order of taking steps, it was not done. Out of the blue, an application for publication was moved which in the given facts and circumstances could not have been allowed and moreover as the record would indicate that there is no formal order of allowing the application for publication, yet the same has been taken as a ground to impute service on the revisionist coupled with the fact that the alleged daily wherein the summons is said to have been published does not have a worthwhile circulation.

8. In the given facts and circumstances, the trial Court committed a grave error in ignoring this material to reject the application despite the fact that irrespective whether the respondents had taken steps or not, it was also an obligation of the Court concerned to be satisfied itself regarding the compliance of Rule 89-A of GRC and in absence thereof, the order impugned cannot be sustained.

9. Shri Dixit, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has 3 SCCR No. 16 of 2025 vehemently urged that this is nothing but a dilatory tactics on behalf of the tenant where repeated attempts are made to delay the proceedings which was initiated in the year 2011.

10. It is also urged that the respondents had to approach the High Court on more than one occasion to get an order of expedition and the last expedition order was passed by the High Court on 01.11.2023 and noticing the aforesaid, the trial Court has passed the order, which cannot be said to be bad especially looking into the conduct of the revisionist.

11. It is also urged that the revisionist was very well aware of the transfer order and though the learned counsel for the revisionist had put in appearance before the Court of Additional District Judge, Court No.5, Lucknow, where the matter was transferred, but they were watching the proceedings without formal endorsements on the order-sheets waiting for the Court to proceed and in the aforesaid circumstances that the attempt of the revisionist is nothing but to soil the solemn proceedings of the Court. Accordingly, the revision deserves to be dismissed.

12. The Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and at the outset, the Court had asked the learned counsel for the respondents as to whether they wish to file their formal written response to which it was fairly urged that the matter be decided on the basis of the material available on record. It is in this view that the Court has proceeded to hear the learned counsel for the parties and the revision is being decided at the admission stage itself with their consent.

13. Considering the facts and circumstances as well as from a perusal of the extracts of the order-sheets, which have been provided to the Court for perusal and it is noted that Shri Dixit, learned counsel for the respondents, does not dispute the said order-sheets. Accordingly, having examined the same, it would indicate that on 28.11.2022, the matter was listed before the Court of Additional District Judge, Court No.3, Lucknow for disposal of an application bearing Paper-No.C-80. The next date fixed was

17.12.2022, however, in the interregnum, on 14.12.2022, the case was transferred from the Court of Additional District Judge, Court No.3, Lucknow to the Court of Additional District Judge, Court No.5, Lucknow. 4 SCCR No. 16 of 2025

14. The extracts of the order-sheets, which have been provided to the Court, would further indicate that the revisionist had not been appearing nor her counsel and noticing the same, the transferee Court i.e. Additional District Judge, Court No.5, Lucknow had directed the respondents (the plaintiffs before the trial Court) to take steps regarding service on the revisionist herein. The order-sheets also indicate that on 17.05.2023, none had appeared before the Court and the matter was adjourned for

25.07.2023. It was also indicated that the respondents herein would comply with the earlier orders i.e. relating to the state for service on the revisionist.

15. The record further indicates that on 25.07.2023 an application was moved by the respondents herein seeking to serve the revisionist through publication. As far as the order-sheets, which have been produced before the Court, it could not be shown by the learned counsel for the respondents as to by which order, the application for publication was allowed.

16. This assumes significance for two reasons (i) unless there is an order allowing the application for publication, the publication could not have been made and even if it was, it could not have been made the basis of proceeding ex-parte against the revisionist; (ii) even if at all this aspect is ignored for a moment, but the fact still remains that the trial Court had already directed the respondents to take steps for serving the revisionist, which was not complied with and unless and until the Court would have recorded its subjective satisfaction that the earlier orders passed by the Court had been complied with, yet the service could not be affected only then an order of substituted service could have been passed, which unfortunately is conspicuous absent from the record.

17. It is in this view that thereafter the matter was proceeded, which culminated in ex-parte order dated 13.12.2024. As far as the order passed by the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India bearing Writ Petition No.2740 of 2023 (A-227), whereby the proceedings were expedited vide order dated 01.11.2023 is concerned, suffice it to state that it only recorded that the trial Court to proceed expeditiously after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties and it also put a caveat 5 SCCR No. 16 of 2025 that it would be subjected that if there is no legal impediment, therefore, the protection cannot be claimed by the respondents from the order passed by the High Court inasmuch as it had to be noticed whether the revisionist was duly served or not. Even though the trial Court had directed the respondents to take steps and admittedly the same was not done, it was yet again the duty of the Court to ensure that compliance of Rule 89-A of GRC should have been attempted but there is nothing on record to indicate that such a course of action was adopted by the revisional Court.

18. For the aforesaid reasons, apparently, it cannot be said that the revisionist was aware of the proceedings or the application moved by the revisionist, registered as Misc. Case No.42/2025, was per se, a dilatory tactics.

19. This Court having taken note of the aforesaid is satisfied that the premise upon which the trial Court has proceeded has no basis and it could not be made a ground to reject the application for recall.

20. Considering the facts and circumstances, the order impugned dated

08.10.2025 cannot be sustained and is accordingly set aside. The application for recall shall stands allowed on payment of a cost of Rs.15,000/- to be paid by the revisionist to the respondents, within a period of two weeks from today. In case, if the cost is paid within the aforesaid period of two weeks, the suit shall stands restored on the Board of the Additional District Judge, Court No.5, Lucknow, where the parties shall appear on 01.12.2025.

21. Considering the earlier orders passed by the High Court to expedite the proceedings, this Court further observes that since the written statement of the revisionist is already on record, it will be open for the revisionist to file his evidence on the date fixed by the Court and all endeavour would be made to conclude the evidence at the earliest and for the aforesaid purpose, the Court shall take up the matter on weekly basis. No unnecessary adjournments would be granted, however, in case of any exceptional circumstances, if an adjournment has to be granted, then it shall be occasioned with appropriate costs. The trial Court would also make an endeavour to decide the matter expeditiously, so that, the entire 6 SCCR No. 16 of 2025 proceedings can come to an end by 31.01.2026 at the outside.

22. It is made clear that this Court has not made any observations insofar as the merits of the case is concerned, which shall be considered and decided by the trial Court.

23. With the aforesaid, the revision is allowed in the aforesaid terms. November 6, 2025 Rakesh/- (Jaspreet Singh,J.) RAKESH PRAJAPAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench