Allahabad High Court
Rakesh Kumar vs Shiv Kumar Pradhan on 2 May, 2025
Author: Pankaj Bhatia
Bench: Pankaj Bhatia
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:25279 Reserved Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 1001996 of 2000 Petitioner :- Rakesh Kumar Respondent :- Shiv Kumar Pradhan Counsel for Petitioner :- Ruchira Grover, Mohammad Aslam Khan Counsel for Respondent :- Shyam Mohan, Mohan Singh, Nagendra Khare Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.
1. Supplementary Affidavit filed by the counsel for the respondent is taken on record.
2. Heard Mohd. Arif Khan learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mohd. Aslam Khan the counsel for the petitioner and Sri Mohan Singh the counsel for the respondents.
3. The present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 30.04.1998 passed in SCC Suit No.20 of 1987 as well as the order of revision passed on 09.05.2000 whereby the revision was dismissed.
4. The facts, in brief, are that the petitioners no. 1 to 3, claiming themselves to be the joint owner of the property, filed a SCC Suit against the respondents seeking ejectment and for recovery of rent and damages. In the said suit, the respondent had taken a ground that he had purchased the property on 13.09.1955 by paying a sale consideration and since the date of purchase, the premises was occupied by the defendant as the owner and, as such, the suit before the JSCC was not maintainable.
5. During the course of proceedings, reliance was placed upon the judgment of the High Court dated 16.05.1984, based upon a compromise inter se in between the parties. The respondent claimed that he has not signed the compromise, as such, the same was not binding on him. The JSCC court as well as the revisional court based upon the examination of evidence held that it was a title dispute and as such, not maintainable in view of the bar created under section 23 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act.
6. The counsel for the petitioner argues that the suit was filed since long and relegating the parties to avail the remedy before the Civil Court would entail hardship.
7. The counsel for the respondents drew my attention to the decree passed by this court in which admittedly the defendant did not sign the compromise decree and as such, the same was not binding on him.
8. In view of there being no decree against the defendant admitting that the petitioner was the landlord of the premises in question, the court below have rightly returned the plaint for being presented before the appropriate court in exercise of the power under section 23 of the PSCC Act, as such, no interference is called for with the said judgment in view of the title dispute in between the parties.
9. The writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed.
Order Date :- 2.5.2025 VNP/-