NARESH SETHI Vs. RAJKUMARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff/respondent instituted a suit for rent and ejectment against the defendant/revisionist, which was registered as S.C.C. Suit No.05 of 2003 "Smt. Rajkumari Vs. Shri Naresh Sethi". In paragraph nos.4 & 5 of the plaint, the plaintiff/respondent alleged that vide notice-dated 23.12.2002, the defendant was called upon to pay the arrears of rent and charges together with interest and cost of the notice. The tenancy of the defendant was also terminated by the said notice. The notice was sent to the defendant/revisionist at the residential address as well as at the business address by registered A.D. post as well as by U.P.C. Both the registered A.D. envelopes and the U.P.C. envelopes, addressed at the business address of the defendant/ revisionist, returned unserved. The U.P.C sent at the residential address of the defendant/revisionist was served on 24.12.2002. However, to avoid any objection regarding non-receipt of the notice, a copy of the notice was affixed in presence of two witnesses in the verandah situated at the entrance of the said property.

(2.) Mr. V.K. Kohli, Senior Advocate for the revisionist referred Order 14 Rule 5 of the C.P.C. and submitted that additional issues can be framed at any time before passing a decree. He submitted that since the proposed issue is very much relevant for deciding the case, the learned Judge SCC has erred in rejecting the application of the defendant/revisionist. By relying on the judgment A Shanmugam Vs. Ariya Kshatriay Rajakula Vamsathu Madalaya Nandhavana Paripalanai Sangam, 2012 AIR(SCW) 3017 he submitted that it is the duty of the Court to frame all relevant issues. He submitted that if issues are properly framed, the controversy in the case could be properly appreciated in that light. The relevant issue can also be carefully examined. Careful framing of issues also happens in proper examination and cross- examination of witnesses and final arguments in the case. He submitted that the application filed by the defendant/revisionist should have been allowed.

(3.) Shri Piyush Garg, learned counsel for the respondent by relying upon the judgment of the High Court of Delhi in the case of "S.L. Gupta Vs. Ramesh Kumar", 1996 RLR 357 submitted that revision filed by the revisionist is liable to be dismissed, as the order passed by the Court below does not qualify the test of phrase "case decided". He submitted that no rights or obligations of the parties have been finally adjudicated upon by the learned Court below and thus, order being purely interlocutory in nature without having import of deciding rights of the parties finally and hence, no revision under Section 25 of the Small Cause Courts Act could be maintained. He further submitted that defendant/revisionist filed his written statement on 05.08.2004, issues were framed on 04.10.2004, examination-in-chief of P.W.-1 was filed on 19.10.2004 and cross examination was done on 14.09.2005. The parties were well aware of the ground and defence and were conscious of each other pleadings and evidence.