Ajay Kumar Yog, J. - (1.) M /s. Rakesh and Company and others, the petitioners, have approached the Court through this writ petition under Article 226, Constitution of India and seeking to challenge in part only the judgment and order dated 28th May, 2001 (Annexure 1 -A to the writ petition) whereby the Trial Court, Judge Small Causes Court, Meerut/Additional District Judge Court No. 7 while entertaining J.S.C.C. Suit No. 26/96, 27/96 and 28/96 (M/s. Hira Lal and Sons v. M/s. Rakesh and Company and mother) apart from deciding other claim interim applications filed by respective parties, rejected the defendant petitioners application Paper No. 108 -Ga praying for permitting to have report of 'hand -writing -expert' to be brought on record to prove the signature of Alkesh Mittal who had allegedly signed the documents/memorandum dated nil in lieu of giving constructive possession of certain premises (i.e., Godown) in tenancy of the defendant -tenant (petitioner) to the legal representatives of deceased Maya Prakash Mittal (including one Smt. Saroj Mittal) as well as right to manage these properties and proclaiming to vest in them right to realise rent from erstwhile tenant M/s. Rakesh and Company as their tenants Annexure -3 to the Supplementary Affidavit filed with Application No. 76694 of 2001 and sworn by one Darshan Lal as pairokar of the petitioner. It has come on record that there was property disputes between two surviving partners of M/s. Hira Lal and Sons (i.e., Ved Prakash Mittal and Satya Prakash Mittal) and the legal representative of the third deceased partner -Maya Prakash Mittal was going on who had already indulged in litigation before Civil Court.
(2.) IN the aforesaid backdrop, aforementioned Smt. Saroj Mittal filed an application for her impleadment in the above referred J.S.C.C. Suits. Her impleadment application was, however, rejected by the Trial Court and later affirmed by the High Court finally when the learned Single Judge (Hon'ble N.S. Gupta, J.) vide judgment and order dated 20th May, 1998 dismissed her Revision No. 255 of 1998 under section 25, Provincial Small Cause Courts Act observing that it was open for her to seek redressal of her grievance by filing separate suit against the tenant with whom they had entered into agreement of tenancy. (Annexure C.A. -4 to counter -affidavit sworn by Alkesh Mittal on behalf of respondent No. 2). The said memorandum allegedly signed by Alkesh as the partner of the landlord -firm, has been disputed on behalf of the plaintiff -firm (the landlord). The tenant -petitioners initially challenged the impugned order dated 28th May, 2001 only to the extent it allowed the plaintiff's application for striking of defence of the petitioner tenants under Order XV, R.5, C.P.C. by filing Revision No. 375 of 2001 before this Court and in view of the Paras 28 and 32 of Written Statement (wherein tenant -petitioners vis -a -vis plaintiff (Respondent No. 2) had denied relationship of 'landlord' and 'tenant'). The said Revision No. 375 of 2001, M/s. Rakesh & Company and others v. M/s. Hira Lal and Sons, was allowed. Record of said case shows that the said revision was presented before the Stamp Reporter on 5th July, 2001. The memorandum of said revision is dated 4th July, 2001. Application for certified copy of the impugned judgment dated 28th May, 2001 (which was composite in nature) was filed on 29th May, 2001, notified to be ready on 2nd July, 2001 and it was obtained the same day and annexed with the Memorandum of aforesaid Revision No. 375 of 2001, which was finally allowed by learned Single Judge (Hon'ble Janardan Sahai, J.) at the admission stage itself vide judgment and order dated 9th July, 2001 which contain the following operative order: Consequently, the revision is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. However, since the suit is an old one of the year 1996, it is expedient in the interest of justice that the suit itself should be decided at the earlier. In the circumstances, I direct that the suit pending before the Trial Court may be decided within a period or four months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.
(3.) THE above order of High Court dated 9th July, 2001 was passed by this Court in the writ petition filed by the present petitioner.;