KEDARNATH Vs. MOHAN KESARWARI
LAWS(SC)-2002-1-27
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on
January 10,2002
KEDARNATH
Appellant
VERSUS
Mohan Lal Kesarwari And Ors
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
SHARIF V. SURESH CHAND [REFERRED 13.]ROOP BASANT V. DURGA PRASAD [REFERRED 12.]
MOHD. ISLAM V. FAQIR MOHD. [REFERRED 11.]
MAMTA SHARMA V. HARI SHANKAR SRIVASTAVA [REFERRED 8.]
PURSHOTTAM V. SPECIAL ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE,MATHURA [REFERRED 5.]
MOHD. RAMZAN KHAN V. KHUBI KHAN [REFERRED]
SHIKHANI V. BISHAMBHAR NATH [REFERRED 22.]
ROSHAN LAL V. BRIJ LAL AMBA LAL SHAH [REFERRED 19.]
KRISHAN KUMAR VS. HAKIM MOHAMMA [REFERRED 14.]
SURENDRA NATH MITTAL VS. DAYANAND SWARUP [REFERRED 10.]
MOHD YASIN VS. JAI PRAKASH [REFERRED 7.]
RAM CHANDRA DECEASED LRS VS. IXTH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE VARANASI [REFERRED 6.]
SAGIR KHAN VS. D J FARRUKHABAD [REFERRED 4.]
MOHAMMAD NASEM VS. THIRD ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE FAIZABAD [REFERRED 3.]
BEENA KHARE VS. VIIITH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE ALLAHABAD [REFERRED 2.]
CHIGURUPALLI SURYANARAYANA VS. AMADALAVALASA CO OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRIAL SOCIETY LIMITED [REFERRED 15.]
KHETRA DOLAI VS. MOHAN BISSOYI [REFERRED 17.]
TARACHAND HIRACHAND PORWAL VS. DURAPPA TAVANAPPA PATRAVALI [REFERRED 21.]
DHANNA VS. ARJUN LAL [REFERRED 16.]
MURARI LAL VS. MOHAMMAD YASIN [REFERRED 23.]
JAGDAMBA PRASAD VS. RAM DAS SINGH [REFERRED 20.]
KRISHNA CHANDRA SETH VS. DR. K.P. AGARWAL AND ANR. [REFERRED 9.]
VEMBU AMMAL VS. ESAKKIA PILLAI [REFERRED 18.]
Cited Judgements :-
BACHAN SINGH SAJWAN VS. BHAGWATI PRASAD DABRAL [LAWS(UTN)-2017-2-30] [REFERRED TO]MAUSAM ALI VS. CIVIL JUDGE (J.D.), DEHRADUN AND ORS. [LAWS(UTN)-2014-12-92] [REFERRED TO]
MUNNI DEVI GUPTA (SMT.) VS. JUDGE SMALL CAUSES COURT AND OTHERS [LAWS(UTN)-2004-7-53] [REFERRED TO]
PRADEEP KUMAR SINGH @ ATMA SINGH VS. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, COURT NO.2 [LAWS(ALL)-2021-8-224] [REFERRED TO]
SUMIT JAIN VS. OMI [LAWS(ALL)-2009-1-180] [REFERRED TO]
MEGH SHYAM SINGH RAWAT VS. CHETAN GANDHI [LAWS(ALL)-2008-1-168] [REFERRED TO]
MEGH SHYAM SINGH RAWAT VS. CHETAN GANDHI [LAWS(ALL)-2008-1-168] [REFERRED TO]
VIRENDRA KUMAR VS. BHAGWAT DAYAL [LAWS(ALL)-2009-7-135] [REFERRED TO]
RAJU GUPTA ALIAS RAJEEV GUPTA VS. KRISHNA GOPAL RASTOGI [LAWS(ALL)-2004-2-137] [REFERRED TO]
SALONI LAL VS. MOHIT [LAWS(ALL)-2019-1-227] [REFERRED TO]
NAUSABA A SABARI VS. MOHD. ISRAIL AND ANOTHER [LAWS(ALL)-2016-9-366] [REFERRED TO]
DINESH GOYAL VS. CHIMAN LAL AGARWAL [LAWS(ALL)-2010-7-164] [REFERRED TO]
SAPNA KHATRI VS. ABHISHEK RAHA [LAWS(ALL)-2020-1-449] [REFERRED TO]
SUNIL KUMAR SONI VS. DISTRICT JUDGE, SULTANPUR AND OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2012-3-280] [REFERRED TO]
IQBAL AHMED VS. SUDESH KUMARI [LAWS(UTN)-2013-7-22] [REFERRED TO]
DINESH SAH ALIAS DINESH PRASAD VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2010-11-8] [REFERRED TO]
ARTI DIXIT VS. SUSHIL KUMAR MISHRA [LAWS(SC)-2023-5-80] [REFERRED TO]
SHAILESH SUDHIR JOGLEKAR VS. NIRMAL KUMARGULZARILAL JAIN [LAWS(BOM)-2006-3-46] [REFERRED TO]
PUSHPA DEVI VS. HARI MOHAN VARMA [LAWS(ALL)-2005-8-81] [REFERRED TO]
SANJU DUBEY VS. KHASGI DEVI AHILYA BAI HOLKER.CHARITIES THRU RAJA SINGH [LAWS(ALL)-2019-1-222] [REFERRED TO]
ZEESHAN AHMAD VS. MEHBOOB AHMAD [LAWS(ALL)-2021-2-44] [REFERRED TO]
PREM CHANDRA GUPTA VS. DISTRICT JUDGE BARABANKI [LAWS(ALL)-2019-7-136] [REFERRED TO]
ARNOLD HARVEY VS. KRISHNA KUMARI [LAWS(ALL)-2017-11-91] [REFERRED TO]
BADSHAH HUSSAIN ALIAS BASHSHAN VS. SAIF KHAN AND ANOTHER [LAWS(ALL)-2017-2-250] [REFERRED TO]
ZULFIQUAR HUSSAIN VS. MADAN GOPAL CHOPRA [LAWS(ALL)-2011-12-89] [REFERRED TO]
TAZUDDIN VS. ANWAR ALIAS RAJA [LAWS(ALL)-2012-1-245] [REFERRED TO]
SATYA DOGRA VS. NARAYANI DEVI [LAWS(UTN)-2014-12-72] [REFERRED TO]
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE LTD. COMPANY LTD. VS. DISTRICT JUDGE, GHAZIABAD AND OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2002-4-224] [REFERRED TO]
SANJAY MISHRA VS. MAGAN PANDEY [LAWS(ALL)-2023-4-42] [REFERRED TO]
RAJ KUMAR MAKHIJA VS. S K AND CO [LAWS(ALL)-2012-8-97] [REFERRED TO]
AJAY KAUSHIK VS. 4TH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT [LAWS(UTN)-2012-10-6] [REFERRED TO]
JAYASREE FINANCIERS VS. BEJAWADA VENKATACHALAPATHY [LAWS(APH)-2007-4-25] [REFERRED TO]
MAYANK SINGH BHADAURIYA VS. PRABHAT KUMAR SHARMA [LAWS(ALL)-2019-2-270] [REFERRED TO]
PADMA AGARWAL VS. PREMVIDA JAITLEY [LAWS(ALL)-2019-2-330] [REFERRED TO]
VIJAY KUMAR AGARWAL VS. SUBHASH CHAND AND ANOTHER [LAWS(ALL)-2018-3-281] [REFERRED TO]
IRAM KAHKASHA VS. AFZAL KHAN [LAWS(ALL)-2015-2-316] [REFERRED TO]
JAGRUP VS. SATISH [LAWS(ALL)-2017-3-142] [REFERRED TO]
RAMESH KUMAR VS. ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE COURT NO. 2 [LAWS(ALL)-2014-8-227] [REFERRED TO]
SARDAR BASANT SINGH VS. SARDAR SATNAM SINGH [LAWS(ALL)-2015-12-289] [REFERRED TO]
SHAKUNTALA VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(RAJ)-2002-5-57] [REFERRED TO]
MEGH SHYAM SINGH RAWAT VS. CHETAN GANDHI [LAWS(UTN)-2008-1-31] [REFERRED TO]
SHAMSHAD VS. PARACHINAR BIRADARI [LAWS(UTN)-2020-8-23] [REFERRED TO]
KHILLA DEVI ALIAS MANJU SINGH VS. VISHWA MOHINI MISRA [LAWS(ALL)-2004-12-10] [REFERRED TO]
RAJESHWAR PRASAD VS. DISTRICT JUDGE AND ANR. [LAWS(ALL)-2007-3-338] [REFERRED TO]
RAJ KUMAR VS. NEERAJ KUMAR SINGHAL [LAWS(ALL)-2009-12-5] [REFERRED TO]
SUBHASH CHANDRA PURWAR VS. DISTRICT JUDGE MAHOBA [LAWS(ALL)-2012-8-31] [REFERRED TO]
ROSHAN LAL VS. RISHI PAL SINGH [LAWS(ALL)-2012-10-164] [REFERRED TO]
DILSHAD (SINCE DECEASED) & ORS. VS. JAMA MASJID, WAQF AWAGARH, THROUGH ITS SECRETARY, DISTRICT ETAH [LAWS(ALL)-2011-12-376] [REFERRED TO]
AIR PLAZA HOLDING PRIVATE LIMITED VS. NITIN MALHOTRA [LAWS(ALL)-2022-5-202] [REFERRED TO]
MOBESHER HOSSAIN MONDAL VS. SEKHAR CHATTERJEE [LAWS(CAL)-2007-6-22] [REFERRED TO]
RAMRATI (SMT.) AND OTHERS VS. MISRI LAL GIRLS JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL AND OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2007-7-276] [REFERRED TO]
(SMT.) NOOR JAHAN AND ORS. VS. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2006-1-292] [REFERRED TO]
RAM NARAIN MISRA VS. GOBARDHAN DAS AGARWAL [LAWS(ALL)-2002-7-133] [REFERRED TO]
SMT. ANGOORI DEVI AND 3 OTHERS VS. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, COURT NO.1, M. NAGAR AND 10 OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2016-7-344] [REFERRED TO]
KAMLA DEVI AND 3 OTHERS VS. GOPAL KRISHNA RAI AND 2 OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2019-1-34] [REFERRED TO]
ARTI DIXIT VS. SUSHIL KUMAR MISHRA [LAWS(ALL)-2021-8-12] [REFERRED TO]
ANIL KUMAR AGRAWAL VS. SAROJ JAIN [LAWS(ALL)-2019-7-38] [REFERRED TO]
RAJESH GUPTA VS. HAZI JAMILLUDDIN KHAN [LAWS(ALL)-2011-5-151] [REFERRED TO]
PARAMVEERSINGH SANTOSHSINGH SAINI VS. TARACHAND [LAWS(BOM)-2015-6-92] [REFERRED TO]
THAKURJI JUGAL SARKAR SRI RADHA KRISHNA VS. SURAJ PRASAD [LAWS(ALL)-2014-7-29] [REFERRED TO]
LALITA PRASAD LAKHERA VS. SATYA PRASAD VYAS [LAWS(UTN)-2010-8-221] [REFERRED TO]
KASHMIRI DEVI VS. VIJAY LAXMI [LAWS(UTN)-2016-12-42] [REFERRED TO]
SUBODH KUMAR VS. SHAMIM AHMED [LAWS(SC)-2021-3-15] [REFERRED TO]
KUSUM DEVI VS. RAM JI VERMA [LAWS(ALL)-2015-7-191] [REFERRED TO]
SUSHMA AGARWAL VS. DISTRICT JUDGE, AGRA AND 2 OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2018-5-212] [REFERRED TO]
PREM CHANDRA MISHRA VS. IIND ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE ETAH [LAWS(ALL)-2008-9-16] [REFERRED TO]
NIRANAJAN LAL VS. 5TH ADDITIONAL DISTIRCT JUDGE ETACH [LAWS(ALL)-2005-2-87] [REFERRED TO]
JAGDISH VS. DISTRICT JUDGE [LAWS(ALL)-2002-11-2] [REFERRED TO]
RAM PRATAP YADAV VS. IIND A D J [LAWS(ALL)-2005-7-24] [REFERRED TO]
SHRI SALIM S/O. MIYAN KHAN VS. MAJLIS MADARSA-E-ISLAMIA SOCIETY [LAWS(BOM)-2022-6-151] [REFERRED TO]
GURUDWARA GURU NANA AMRIT DARBAR SANSTHAN VS. CIVIL JUDGE [LAWS(UTN)-2004-4-36] [REFERRED TO]
PURAN PRASAD VS. JUDGE, SMALL CAUSE COURTS/CIVIL JUDGE [LAWS(UTN)-2005-8-42] [REFERRED TO]
Bata India Ltd. VS. Amiya Sankar Patra [LAWS(ORI)-2008-9-21] [REFERRED TO]
Puran Prasad VS. Judge Small Causes Courts [LAWS(ALL)-2006-1-69] [REFERRED TO]
HAR KUMAR VIDYARTHI VS. SUDHA DEVI [LAWS(ALL)-2006-1-223] [REFFERED TO]
SHYAM SHANKER AND OTHERS VS. SAHU SARVESH KUMAR AND OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2008-1-266] [REFERRED TO]
SARDAR MALKEET SINGH GILL VS. HARKEERAT SINGH DHILLON [LAWS(ALL)-2013-10-269] [REFERRED TO]
BINDESHWARI PRASAD SONI VS. ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE COURT NO. 1 [LAWS(ALL)-2012-9-283] [REFERRED TO]
SRI PANCHAYATI AKHARA MAHANIRVANI VAIDIK SANATAN BHARTI VS. RAM PRAKASH PATHAK AND ANOTHER [LAWS(ALL)-2016-8-86] [REFERRED TO]
MOHD IKRAIL AND 2 OTHERS VS. NAUSHABA A SABRI AND 7 OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2016-9-85] [REFERRED]
MOHIT VS. SALONI LAL [LAWS(ALL)-2019-5-237] [REFERRED TO]
NISAR AHMAD & ANR VS. A D J COURT NO 2 BARABANKI & ORS [LAWS(ALL)-2019-3-63] [REFERRED TO]
REENA AGARWAL AND ORS. VS. SHAMMI MALHOTRA [LAWS(ALL)-2018-11-268] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
R. C. Lahoti, J. -
(1.)The landlord-appellant filed a suit for recovery of arrears of rent and for eviction against the tenant-respondents on the ground available under Cl. (a) of sub-section (2) of S. 20 of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, hereinafter U.P. Urban Buildings Act, for short. A suit of the nature filed by the appellant being triable by a Court of Small Causes, as provided by the U.P. Civil Laws Amendment Act, 1972 was filed in the Court of Small Causes, Allahabad. On 9-8-1996, the suit came to be decreed ex parte. The decree directed the tenant-respondents to pay an amount of Rs.8500/- as pre-suit arrears of rent and a further amount calculated at the rate of Rs. 250/- per month from the date of institution of suit to the date of recovery of possession. A decree for eviction was also passed. The decree was put to execution and on 21-2-1998 the decree-holder obtained possession over the suit premises with police help. The Court amin certified the delivery of possession to the executing Court. On 26-2-1998, the tenant-respondents moved an application under O. 9, R.13 of the C.P.C. seeking setting aside of the ex parte decree. Neither the amount due under the decree was deposited nor an application was filed seeking direction of the Court to give security for the performance of the decree in lieu of depositing the decretal amount. On 14-10-1998, arguments were heard on the application under O. 9, R. 13 of the C.P.C. The Court appointed 16-10-1998 for orders.
(2.)It appears that during the course of hearing the appellant decree-holder pointed out to the Court that the application seeking setting aside of the ex parte decree was not maintainable and was liable to be dismissed in limine for non-compliance with proviso to S. 17 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 (hereinafter, 'the PSCC Act' for short). On 15-10-1998, the tenant-respondents filed an application praying that they may be permitted to furnish security for payment of decretal amount. The reason assigned for failure to deposit the amount due under the decree or to furnish security along with the application seeking setting aside of the ex parte decree is somewhat oscillating. At one place at is stated that their advocate had never advised them to deposit the decretal amount as the advocate himself was not aware of the provision. Then, at another place, it is stated that the rent was already paid to the landlord decree-holder and there were no arrears required to be deposited. At yet another place it is stated that their advocate had advised them that on the application seeking setting aside of the ex parte decree being allowed and the suit being restored to file, on the first date of hearing the tenant has to deposit the rent in arrears which would be done at that stage only. Vide order dated 15-11-1998, the learned Judge, Small Causes rejected the application filed by the tenant-respondent forming an opinion that ignorance of law was not excusable and the application under O. 9, R. 13 of C.P.C. filed without complying with proviso to S. 17 of the PSCC Act was not maintainable.
(3.)The tenant-respondents preferred a revision in the Court of Additional District Judge, which was allowed. The learned Additional District Judge vide order dated 22-4-1999, condoned the delay in moving the application dated 15-10-1998 and directed the trial Court to accept security as proposed and hear and decide the application under O.9, R. 13 of the C.P.C. on merits. The abovesaid revisional order was put in issue by the landlord-appellant by filing a writ petition under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution before the High Court, which has been rejected. The landlord has filed this appeal by special leave.
(2.)It appears that during the course of hearing the appellant decree-holder pointed out to the Court that the application seeking setting aside of the ex parte decree was not maintainable and was liable to be dismissed in limine for non-compliance with proviso to S. 17 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 (hereinafter, 'the PSCC Act' for short). On 15-10-1998, the tenant-respondents filed an application praying that they may be permitted to furnish security for payment of decretal amount. The reason assigned for failure to deposit the amount due under the decree or to furnish security along with the application seeking setting aside of the ex parte decree is somewhat oscillating. At one place at is stated that their advocate had never advised them to deposit the decretal amount as the advocate himself was not aware of the provision. Then, at another place, it is stated that the rent was already paid to the landlord decree-holder and there were no arrears required to be deposited. At yet another place it is stated that their advocate had advised them that on the application seeking setting aside of the ex parte decree being allowed and the suit being restored to file, on the first date of hearing the tenant has to deposit the rent in arrears which would be done at that stage only. Vide order dated 15-11-1998, the learned Judge, Small Causes rejected the application filed by the tenant-respondent forming an opinion that ignorance of law was not excusable and the application under O. 9, R. 13 of C.P.C. filed without complying with proviso to S. 17 of the PSCC Act was not maintainable.
(3.)The tenant-respondents preferred a revision in the Court of Additional District Judge, which was allowed. The learned Additional District Judge vide order dated 22-4-1999, condoned the delay in moving the application dated 15-10-1998 and directed the trial Court to accept security as proposed and hear and decide the application under O.9, R. 13 of the C.P.C. on merits. The abovesaid revisional order was put in issue by the landlord-appellant by filing a writ petition under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution before the High Court, which has been rejected. The landlord has filed this appeal by special leave.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.