Allahabad High Court
Sardar Charanjit Singh vs Judge S.C.C./2Nd Addl. Dist. Judge ... on 8 August, 2019
Author: Irshad Ali
Bench: Irshad Ali
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 24 Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 21765 of 2019 Petitioner :- Sardar Charanjit Singh Respondent :- Judge S.C.C./2nd Addl. Dist. Judge Balrampur & Anr. Counsel for Petitioner :- Mohd. Mustafizul Haq Counsel for Respondent :- Karunakar Srivastava Hon'ble Irshad Ali,J.
Heard Sri Q.M. Haq, learned counsel for the petitioner and to Sri Karunakar Srivastava, learned counsel for respondent No.2.
Brief fact of the case is that the respondent filed a suit for arrears of rent and ejectment before the Judge Small Causes Court, which was numbered as Suit No.1 of 2016, which was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 27.07.2016 by Additional District Judge, District Balrampur. An execution case was filed, wherein warrant was issued regarding possession on 27.10.2016. The petitioner filed an application under Section 17 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act along with an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC with an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act supported by an affidavit and revision under Section 47 of CPC.
The application moved by the petitioner under Section 17 was allowed with a direction to furnish security bond and to stay the execution of the decree. The petitioner furnished security bond in judicial stamp. An objection was filed by the respondent before the Court below for recall of the order dated 03.02.2017, whereby the application filed under Section 17 was allowed on the ground that the bond is on judicial stamp while it should have been on non judicial stamp and the security bond is furnished by the judgment debtor while it should have been furnished by a third party.
The petitioner moved an application on 04.04.2019 for recall of the order dated 07.03.2019 seeking permission to furnish fresh security bond, as required. The application filed by the petitioner has been rejected vide order dated 30.05.2019, against which he filed revision No.69 of 2019, which was withdrawn with a liberty to avail appropriate remedy.
Now, the petitioner has approached to this Court for quashing the order dated 30.05.2019 and the order dated 07.03.2019 passed by respondent No.1 with a further prayer to issue direction to accept the fresh security bond regarding decreed amount from the petitioner.
Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that SCC Case No.1 of 2016 was decided ex-parte to the petitioner, as service of notice upon the petitioner was defective and incorrect report was submitted in this regard.
His next submission is that the Court below once allowed the application moved under Section 17 of the Small Causes Court Act to furnish security of the decreetal amount and provisionally the security bond was filed by the petitioner and in case the same was not in accordance with law, the Court would have permitted the petitioner to furnish another security bond.
On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that the lower Court has not committed any error in passing the impugned orders. In view of the settled proposition of law, objections were invited under Section 17 of the Small Causes Court Act and after considering the entire material on record, the Court by relying on certain judgments of this Court as well as of Hon'ble Apex Court has passed the impugned orders. Therefore, his submission is that there is no illegality in the orders and the same are just and valid.
On completion of arguments by the respective parties, learned counsel for the petitioner requested that in case some reasonable time is granted to comply with the judgment and decree passed in S.C.C. Suit No.1 of 2016, the petitioner shall vacate the premises in dispute. He further requested that in the premises, school is running and students admitted are pursuing their studies, thus, their interest be saved.
Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 consented that, if the petitioner is ready to vacate the premises in question, he has no objection, in case reasonable time is allowed to vacate the premises in the interest of the students.
In view of the consent of the learned counsel for the respondent No.2, to save the interest of the students studying in the school, which is run and managed by the petitioner in the premises in dispute, it is provided that the petitioner shall permit the students to pursue their studies in the premises till the end of the next academic session i.e. 31.03.2020 and shall vacate the premises in question till 04.04.2020.
In view of the consent and direction referred herein above, this writ petition is finally disposed of. However, the penalty contained under the judgment and decree of the suit that in case of default in vacating the premises, penalty of Rs.1,000/- per day shall not be made applicable till the time provided to vacate the premises in question. In case, the petitioner does not vacate the vacate the premises till 04.04.2020, the penalty contained under the judgment and decree of the suit shall be given effect to.
Order Date :- 8.8.2019 Adarsh K Singh