S.U.KHAN,J. - (1.) LIST revised. No one appears for contesting respondent No. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. This writ petition was dismissed in default on 12.10.2004. Thereafter it was restored on 24.1.2008.
(2.) THIS is landlords' writ petition. The original landlady petitioner Smt. Parwati filed Original Suit No. 920 of 1971 against tenant-respondent No. 2-Chauwa alias Ayodhya Prasad. In the suit eviction was sought on the ground of default. Prayer for recovery of arrears of rent was also made. It was alleged that since 18.4.1970 rent had not been paid. Tenancy had been terminated through notice dated 17.8.1971 served on the tenant on 20.8.1971. Tenant filed written statement and denied relationship of landlord and tenant. Tenant claimed that he himself was the owner. After amendment in Provincial Small Cause Courts Act by Uttar Pradesh Legislature, the suit was transferred by order of the District Judge, Jhansi to the Court of Judge Small Causes Courts on 23.12.1972. J.S.C.C. Jhansi on 25.5.1973 passed an order that question of title was involved hence suit could be tried on regular side. Thereafter on 6.7.1973 the J.S.C.C. wrote a letter to the District Judge requesting for transfer of the suit to the Court of Munsif. Jhansi. (Under Section 23, P.S.C.C. Act it is provided that if complicated question of title is involved then suit may be transferred to the regular court or plaint may be returned for filing before regular court). District Judge, Jhansi on 10.7.1973 directed the suit to be transferred to the Court of Munsif, Jhansi. Accordingly, suit was transferred on 13.7.1973. On 14.7.1973 file was received on transfer in the Court of Additional Munsif. Court of Additional Munsif, Jhansi was also authorized to act as J.S.C.C. and was accordingly functioning as J.S.C.C. also. On 1.2.1974 defendant was absent hence suit was directed to proceed ex parte and 8.2.1974 was fixed for final hearing on which date suit was decreed ex parte. Neither any application for setting aside ex parte decree was filed nor any appeal was filed against the same. Thereafter plaintiff filed Execution Case No. 184 of 1974. In the execution case tenant-respondent No. 2 filed objections under Section 47, C.P.C. on 28.5.1974. The objection was registered as Case No. 30 of 1974. The objection was that learned Additional Munsif decided the suit as J.S.C.C. and not as Munsif hence the ex parte decree passed against the tenant was without jurisdiction and nullity. The objections were rejected in default on 1.10.1977. Thereafter on 5.10.1977 fresh objections were filed which was registered as Misc. Case No. 13 of 1977. In these objections prayer for setting aside order dated 1.10.1977 rejecting earlier objections in default was also made. Objections dated 5.10.1977 were dismissed on merit on 24.3.1979 by Munsif. However, no one had appeared on behalf of respondent No. 2 to press the said objections on the said date also. Against the order dated 24.3.1979, respondent No. 2 filed Revision No. 49 of 1979. IInd A.D.J., Jhansi allowed the revision through judgment and order dated 2.11.1981 holding that the Munsif decided the suit as J.S.C.C. and not as Munsif, i.e., regular court hence decree was nullity. The said judgment and order of the revisional court has been challenged through this writ petition. In the impugned order it is mentioned that the presiding officer of the Court which decided the suit acted as J.S.C.C. and not as Munsif.
(3.) THE view taken by learned A.D.J./Revisional Court is ultra-technical and utterly baseless. If the same presiding officer has got powers to act in two capacities, then he can hear and decide cases of both the jurisdictions. If while signing the judgment or decree the learned Additional Munsif also described himself as J.S.C.C., it did not mean that he decided the case as J.S.C.C. Such type of approach is ridiculous and lowers the dignity of the law and the Courts and invites the uncharitable remarks like "if this is the law then the law is an ass" (Charles Dickens in Oliver Twist)". It amounts to obscuring the reality by absurdity. There was absolutely no allegation by or on behalf of respondent No. 2 that the learned Munsif while deciding the suit exparte had done anything which was permitted to be done only by J.S.C.C. and not by Munsif/Regular Court.;