# Awadh Bihari Tripathi Revisionist v. Smt. Shanti Devi Shukla

- **Citation:** (2014) 3 ILRA 1312
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2014-11-21
- **Case number:** Civil Revision No. 143 of 2013
- **Bench:** Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/awadh-bihari-tripathi-revisionist-v-smt-shanti-devi-shukla-43128
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

(A) Provincial Small Causes Court Act1887-Section 25-jurisdiction of Revisional
Court-held-very
limited-no illegality or
perversity committed by Court below-no
interference required-revision dismissed.
Held: Para-18
The revisional jurisdiction of this Court
under Section 25 of the Provincial Small
3 All].
 Awadh Bihari Tripathi Vs. Smt. Shanti Devi Shukla
1313
Cause Courts Act, 1887 is limited. The
Court can interfere under this section
only when the finding recorded by the
Court below is totally perverse and is
based on no evidence. Learned counsel
for the revisionist-tenant has failed to
point out any perversity in the order of
the Court below, as discussed above. The
findings of the Court below on various
points are based on documentary as well
as oral evidence. It has not been pointed
out that the Court below has ignored any
important documentary evidence filed by
the tenant-revisionist or it has taken into
consider any fact, which was not on the
record.
(B) C.P.C. Order XV Rule V-first date of
hearing-whether
the
date
of
filling
written statement or the day on which
issue framed? Held-in view of law laid
down by Apex Court in case of Chotti
case-first date
of hearing would be
15.06.10 when written statement filedwhile rent deposited on 15.07.10 not
entitled to a claim benefit of statutory
protection.
Held: Para-16
This
Court
after
considering
the
judgment of the Supreme Court in
respect of the Small Cause Courts Act
held that the first date of hearing shall
be the date for appearance as well as
final hearing. Applying the said principle
in the present case, the tenant had filed
his written statement on 15th June,
2010 and submitted his tender on 15th
July, 2010, therefore, I do not find any
error in the finding of the Court below
that the tenant has deposited the arrears
of rent after the first date of hearing.
Thus, he was not entitled for the benefit
of Section 20(4) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of

## Text

1312
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Maa Bhagwati Coke Guj Pvt. Ltd., 2009
(9) SCC 403, where Clause 14 of the
agreement, which was a High Seas Sale
Agreement, provided that the sale contract
would be subject to Kolkata jurisdiction.
The venue of the arbitration was also agreed
to be Kolkata, West Bengal. After
discussing several earlier judgments on the
issue, the Apex Court held that the parties
had knowingly and voluntarily agreed for
Kolkata jurisdiction and even if the Courts
in Gujarat also had jurisdiction, the
agreement to have the disputes decided in
Kolkata by an Arbitrator was valid and the
respondent-Company had wrongly chosen
to file an application under Section 9 of the
Act before a Court in Gujrat and the same
was in violation of the agreement. The
Apex
Court
relied
upon
an
earlier
judgement in the case of A.B.C. Laminart
(P) Ltd. Vs. A.P. Agencies, 1989 (2) SCC
173 to approve a legal proposition that so
long as the parties to a contract do not oust
the jurisdiction of all the Courts, which
would otherwise have jurisdiction to decide
the cause of action under the law, it could
not be said that the parties had by their
contract ousted the jurisdiction of the Court.
To similar effect is a judgment of this Court
rendered by a Division Bench in the case of
NKC Projects Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. Vs. Utility
Energytech & Engineers Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.,
2009 (4) ALJ 18 (DB).
13. A perusal of the demand made
by the notice dated 20.6.2007 send by
applicants to the defendants is a useful
material for coming to the conclusion that
the dispute, as per the demand of the
applicants, relate to damages and claims
and not to immovable property. In such a
situation, under law, the suit could have
been filed at Mumbai where the defendants
resides, or where some cause of action
arose, i.e. in the State of Uttar Pradesh.
Hence, the relevant clause in the agreement
conferring jurisdiction in the matter solely
upon the Courts at Mumbai cannot be said
to be illegal in view of the Supreme court
judgments noticed herein above.
14.
In view of the aforesaid
discussions, it is held that this application
under Section 11 of the Act has been
wrongly
filed
before
this
Court
at
Allahabad. The proper Court for filing such
application would be at Mumbai. In that
view of the matter, this application is
dismissed, but with liberty to the applicants
that they may prefer similar application
before the competent Court at Mumbai.
--------
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 21.11.2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE PRADEEP KUMAR SINGH
BAGHEL, J.
Civil Revision No. 143 of 2013
Awadh Bihari Tripathi
...Revisionist
Versus
Smt. Shanti Devi Shukla
...Respondent
Counsel for the Revisionist:
Sri Radha Kant Ojha, Sri Satyendra
Chandra Tripathi
Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri B.K. Srivastava, Sri C. K. Singh, Sri
Dhiraj Srivastava
(A) Provincial Small Causes Court Act1887-Section 25-jurisdiction of Revisional
Court-held-very
limited-no illegality or
perversity committed by Court below-no
interference required-revision dismissed.
Held: Para-18
The revisional jurisdiction of this Court
under Section 25 of the Provincial Small
3 All].
 Awadh Bihari Tripathi Vs. Smt. Shanti Devi Shukla
1313
Cause Courts Act, 1887 is limited. The
Court can interfere under this section
only when the finding recorded by the
Court below is totally perverse and is
based on no evidence. Learned counsel
for the revisionist-tenant has failed to
point out any perversity in the order of
the Court below, as discussed above. The
findings of the Court below on various
points are based on documentary as well
as oral evidence. It has not been pointed
out that the Court below has ignored any
important documentary evidence filed by
the tenant-revisionist or it has taken into
consider any fact, which was not on the
record.
(B) C.P.C. Order XV Rule V-first date of
hearing-whether
the
date
of
filling
written statement or the day on which
issue framed? Held-in view of law laid
down by Apex Court in case of Chotti
case-first date
of hearing would be
15.06.10 when written statement filedwhile rent deposited on 15.07.10 not
entitled to a claim benefit of statutory
protection.
Held: Para-16
This
Court
after
considering
the
judgment of the Supreme Court in
respect of the Small Cause Courts Act
held that the first date of hearing shall
be the date for appearance as well as
final hearing. Applying the said principle
in the present case, the tenant had filed
his written statement on 15th June,
2010 and submitted his tender on 15th
July, 2010, therefore, I do not find any
error in the finding of the Court below
that the tenant has deposited the arrears
of rent after the first date of hearing.
Thus, he was not entitled for the benefit
of Section 20(4) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of
1972.
Case Law discussed:
2002 (1) ARC 370; AIR 1993 SC 2525; 1995
(1) ARC 563; 1999 (4) AWC 3484 (SC); 2002
(2) ARC 160; 2006 (2) ARC 208; 2011 (5)
AWC 4405; 2012 (4) AWC 3374; 2013 (1) ARC
335; 2013 (2) AWC 1509; 2014 (1) ARC 692;
1999 (2) ARC 71.
(Delivered by Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar
Singh Baghel, J.)
1. This is a revision preferred by a
tenant under Section 25 of the Provincial
Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 against the
judgment and order dated 01st March,
2013 and decree dated 07th March, 2013
passed by the Judge, Small Cause
Court/Additional District Judge, Court
No. 7, Kanpur Nagar, whereby Small
Cause Suit No. 160 of 2009 (Smt. Shanti
Devi Shukla v. Sri Awadh Bihari
Tripathi) filed by the landlady-respondent
has been decreed by directing the tenantrevisionist to vacate the suit premises
within thirty days and to pay the arrears of
rent of Rs.70,066/- and damages at the
rate of Rs.2,000/- per month since 28th
September, 2009 till the actual physical
possession is handed over to the landlady.
2. The essential facts are that the
respondent is landlady/owner of Premises
No. 133/16, Transport Nagar, Kanpur
Nagar. The revisionist is tenant in a shop
situated in the said premises at the rate of
Rs.2,000/- per month excluding the tax.
Said shop was let out in the year 1986
vide a lease agreement dated 16th
December, 1986 for a period of 11
months. The tenancy started from 15th
December, 1986 and came to an end on
14th November, 1987. However, in spite
of expiry of said period of agreement, the
tenant did not vacate the suit premises.
Thereafter at the instance of the landlady
the rent was enhanced from Rs.1,000/- to
Rs.2,000/- per month in terms of Clause14 of the agreement. It is stated that the
tenant has deposited the rent from 16th
November, 1987 to 31st December, 1990
at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per month, which
comes to a total sum of Rs.75,000/-, and
the landlady issued a receipt of the said
1314
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
amount on 04th December, 1990. It is
further stated that when the landlady
asked the tenant to pay 18% tax in
addition to the rent in terms of the
agreement since January, 2001, the tenant
refused to pay the said tax and also
stopped paying rent since January, 2001.
When after several requests the tenant did
not pay the rent and the tax, the landlady
on 24th August, 2009 sent a notice to the
tenant determining his tenancy and made
a demand of arrears of rent. Vide said
notice the tenant was asked to vacate the
premises in terms of the notice. The said
notice was served on the tenant on 28th
August, 2009 but neither he did pay
arrears of rent, as demanded in the notice,
nor did he vacate the premises. The tenant
had sent a reply to the said notice on 19th
September, 2009, wherein he disputed the
rate of rent. According to the tenant,
agreed rent was Rs.1,000/- per month and
not Rs.2,000/- per month, as claimed by
the landlady in her notice.
3. Against this background, the
landlady-respondent instituted a suit for
eviction and arrears of rent in the Court of
Judge, Small Cause, Kanpur Nagar which
was registered as Small Cause Suit No.
160 of 2009 (Smt. Shanti Devi v. Sri
Awadh Bihari Tripathi). The revisionisttenant contested the suit and filed his
written statement and denied the claim
made by the landlady.
4. The Court below framed six
issues for determination which are as
under:
(i) Whether rate of rent is Rs.2000/-
per month excluding the taxes as claimed
by the plaintiff-landlady or is Rs.1000/-
including taxes per month as claimed by
the defendant-tenant?
(ii) Whether defendant is entitled to
get the benefits of the provisions of
Section 20(4) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972?
(iii) Whether the defence of the
defendant is liable to be struck off for
non-compliance of Order XV Rule 5(2) of
the Code of Civil Procedure?
(iv) Whether the defendant has
committed default in payment of rent
from 1.1.2001 and he is in arrears of rent
for more than 4 months?
(v) Whether the suit filed by the
plaintiff without consent of the co-owner
is not maintainable?
(vi) Whether any other relief can be
granted to the plaintiff?
5. The Issue No. 1 was decided in
favour of the landlady and it was found
that the rate of rent was Rs.2000/- per
month and not Rs.1000/- per month, as
claimed by the tenant. As regards Issue
No. 2, the Court below recorded a finding
that the tenant has not deposited the entire
rent and cost of the suit in terms of
Section 20(4) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban
Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent
and Eviction) Act, 1972 (U.P. Act No. 13
of 1972). The tenant is not entitled for the
benefit of Section 20(4) of the U.P. Act
No. 13 of 1972, as the tenant-revisionist
has failed to deposit the entire arrears of
rent on the first date of hearing of the suit.
In addition to above, he has not deposited
the entire arrears of the rent and the
expenses. Issue No. 3, which deals with
striking off the defence of the tenant, was
decided in favour of the tenant and the
Court below refused to strike off the
defence of the landlady on the ground that
the
tenant
has
made
substantial
compliance of the deposits of the rent.
With regard to Issue No. 4 the Court
below was satisfied that the tenant has
made default and in spite of notice
3 All].
 Awadh Bihari Tripathi Vs. Smt. Shanti Devi Shukla
1315
demanding the arrears of rent, it was not
paid for more than four months. Thus, the
said issue was decided against the tenant.
Issue
No.
5
was
in
respect
of
maintainability of the suit. It was alleged
by the tenant that all the landlords have
not joined the suit but the Court below has
decided the said issue in favour of the
landlady. Accordingly, the Court below
vide impugned judgment and decree
decreed
the
suit
of
the
landladyrespondent.
6. I have heard Sri Radha Kant Ojha,
learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri
Satyendra
Chandra
Tripathi,
learned
Counsel for the tenant-revisionist, and Sri
B.K. Srivastava, learned Senior Advocate,
assisted by Sri C.K. Singh and Sri Dhiraj
Srivastava, learned Counsel for the
landlady-respondent.
7. Sri Radha Kant Ojha, learned
Senior Counsel appearing for the tenantrevisionist, submits that the tenant has
deposited the entire rent on the first date
of hearing. In this case, since the issues
have been framed, there cannot be the
first date of hearing before framing of the
issues. He submits that the Court below
has illegally accepted that the first date of
hearing is 15th June, 2010 when the
revisionist had filed his written statement.
The Court below has failed to understand
that it is well settled that the first date of
hearing will be the date when the Court
applies its mind and it would not be prior
to the date of filing of the written
statement, where the issues were not
framed. If the issues are framed, then that
will be the date of first hearing. He further
submits that in the present case written
statement was filed on 15th June, 2010
and thereafter the next date fixed was
15th July, 2010. On that date, the Court
below has granted permission to the
revisionist-tenant to deposit the arrears of
rent under Section 20(4) of the U.P. Act
No. 13 of 1972. Thus, prior to 15th July,
2010 the Court below had not applied its
mind, therefore, the revisionist-tenant was
entitled to get benefit of Section 20(4) of
the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. He has
placed reliance on a judgment of the
Supreme Court in the case of Mam Chand
Pal v. Smt. Shanti Agarwal, 2002 (1)
ARC 370.
8. Sri Ojha further contended that
the agreement dated 16th December, 1986
was an unregistered document, therefore,
the Court below has illegally placed
reliance on the said agreement. He has
further urged that the landlady has filed a
suit under Section 21 of the U.P. Act No.
13 of 1972, therefore, it is evident that the
provisions of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972
are applicable to the suit premises. Sri
Ojha has also contended that the finding
of the Court below refusing to give
benefit of Section 20(4) of the U.P. Act
No. 13 of 1972 on the ground that the
tenant has failed to deposit the entire rent
and the expenses, is erroneous and against
the evidence on record.
9. Sri B.K. Srivastava, learned
Senior
Counsel
appearing
for
the
landlady-respondent, has submitted that
the provisions of the U.P. Act No. 13 of
1972 are not applicable to the premises in
dispute. The tenancy has rightly been
determined by the landlady-respondent.
He further submitted that in the present
case the suit was filed on 27th October,
2009
and
in
the
summons
02nd
December, 2009 was fixed for written
statement/hearing. The tenant had refused
to accept the summons. Thus, the
publication was made on 03rd February,
1316
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
2010. In pursuance thereof, the tenant
appeared for the first time before the Court
below on 24th February, 2010 and moved
an application for getting copy of the plaint
and other papers. He sought adjournments
on 19th March, 2010, 02nd April, 2010,
31st May, 2010 and 11th June, 2010 and
he filed his written statement on 15th June,
2010. The tenant-revisionist moved an
application on 15th July, 2010, being Paper
No. 22-Ga(2), for passing tender to make
deposit under Section 20(4) of the U.P. Act
No. 13 of 1972 on which 16th July, 2010
was fixed. On 16th July, 2010 the matter
was adjourned and on 21st July, 2010 the
tenant-revisionist deposited a sum of
Rs.1,90,000/-.
From
the
aforesaid
chronological
dates,
learned
Senior
Counsel appearing for the landladyrespondent sought to argue that the tenantrevisionist has failed to deposit the amount
on the first date of hearing, which in the
present case was on 15th June, 2010, when
the Court had applied its mind. Therefore,
the Court below has rightly rejected the
claim of the tenant-revisionist to give
benefit of Section 20(4) of the U.P. Act
No. 13 of 1972.
10.
Sri B.K. Srivastava has further
submitted that in addition to above, the
tenant-revisionist did not deposit the entire
arrears of rent, tax, interest, court fee.
According to him, the arrears of rent was
Rs.2,28,000/-. The tenant has deposited
only Rs.1,14,000/-. Thus, there was a
shortfall of Rs.1,14,000/-. The tax was
Rs.41,041/-, whereas the tenant deposited
Rs.15,390/-. Under the head of interest
Rs.58,995/- was due, out of which he has
deposited only Rs.49,162.50. The court fee
was Rs.10,996/-, out of which he had
deposited Rs.5,196.50. Thus, the tenant
ought to have deposited a total sum of
Rs.3,39,031/-
but
he
deposited
only
Rs.1,90,000/-. Therefore, there was a huge
shortfall of Rs.1,55,282/-. For this reason
also, he was not entitled for the benefit of
Section 20(4) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of
1972. He further submitted that under
Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause
Courts
Act
this
Court
has
limited
jurisdiction and if the finding is not
perverse, this Court should not interfere
under the revisional jurisdiction under
Section 25.
11. In support of his submissions, Sri
Srivastava has relied upon several decisions
of the Supreme Court in Siraj Ahmad
Siddiqui v. Shri Prem Nath Kapoor, AIR
1993 SC 2525; Advaita Nand v. Judge,
Small Causes Court, Meerut and others,
1995 (1) ARC 563; Smt. Sudershan Devi
and another v. Smt. Sushila Devi and
another, 1999 (4) AWC 3484 (SC); and,
Ashok Kumar and others v. Rishi Ram and
others, 2002 (2) ARC 160, and of this Court
in Saadat Ali v. J.S.C.C., Moradabad and
others, 2006 (2) ARC 208; Commercial
Auto Sales (P) Ltd. v. Auto Sales
(Properties), 2011 (5) AWC 4405; Rashid v.
Kailash Chand, 2012 (4) AWC 3374; Om
Prakash v. Sri Anil Kumar, 2013 (1) ARC
335; Mahesh Chandra and others v.
Ashwani Kumar, 2013 (2) AWC 1509; and
Mela Ram (since deceased and substituted
by legal heirs) v. Arun Kumar Agrawal,
2014 (1) ARC 692.
12. I have considered the rival
submissions advanced by the learned
Counsel appearing for the parties and
perused the records.
13. Before adverting to the issue
whether the revisionist-tenant is entitled
to the benefit of Section 20 (4) of the U.P.
Act No. 13 of 1972 or not, it is necessary
to examine whether the rent of the
3 All].
 Awadh Bihari Tripathi Vs. Smt. Shanti Devi Shukla
1317
tenanted premises was Rs.2,000/- per
month, as claimed by the landlady, or
Rs.1,000/-, as claimed by the tenantrevisionist. The landlady has relied upon
an agreement dated 16th December, 1986,
whereby the shop was let out to the
revisionist-tenant at the rate of Rs.1,000/-
per month. Clause-14 of the said
agreement provides that in case after
expiry of the eleven months the tenant
does not vacate the premises and he
continues in possession, in that event the
rent shall be Rs.2,000/- per month. The
revisionist-tenant
has
denied
this
agreement. A copy of the said agreement
is on the record. The Court below has
recorded a finding that this agreement
bears the signature of the tenant and he
did not file Handwriting Expert opinion
denying his signature. Thus, I do not find
any error in the finding of the Court
below that there is existence of an
agreement between the parties.
14. The landlady has also filed
counter-foil of the rent, which has been
duly proved by her witness. From the
same counter-foil it was noticed by the
Court below that the receipt of previous
tenants and other tenants have also been
issued. On the basis of the documentary
evidence as well as statement of P.W.-1
Sri Rajesh Kumar Shukla, it has been
established by the landlady that the rate of
rent was Rs.2,000/- per month. The Court
below has elaborately analysed the
evidence while recording its finding on
this point i.e. Issue No.1. Learned Senior
Counsel appearing for the revisionisttenant Sri Ojha has failed to point out any
error in the finding of fact recorded by the
Court, therefore, I find that the finding
recorded by the Court below that the rent
was Rs.2,000/- per month does not suffer
from any illegality.
15. It is submitted by Sri Ojha that
the first date of hearing in the present case
shall be the date when the Court below
has framed the issues. In the cases of the
small cause suits, the issue about the first
date of hearing is no more res integra.
16. The Supreme Court in the case of
Siraj Ahmad Siddiqui (supra) has held that
the first date of hearing is the date on which
the Court proposes to apply its mind to
determine the point in controversy between
the parties to the suit and to frame the
issues, if necessary. The Court held that
"when time is fixed by the court for the
filing of the written statement and the
hearing, these dates bind the defendant,
regardless of the service of the summons,
and compliance with the provisions of
Section 20(4) of the said Act must be
judged upon the basis of the dates so fixed".
In respect of Section 20 (4) of the U.P. Act
No. 13 of 1972 the Court held that the date
for filing of the written statement and
hearing shall be the first date of hearing.
The aforesaid ratio was explained by the
Supreme Court in the case of Advaita Nand
(supra). The Court held that the first date of
hearing shall be the date when the time is
fixed by the Court for filing the written
statement and hearing. Same view has been
taken by this Court also in the case of Chotti
v. 13th Additional District and Sessions
Judge, Agra and others, 1999 (2) ARC 71.
This Court after considering the judgment
of the Supreme Court in respect of the
Small Cause Courts Act held that the first
date of hearing shall be the date for
appearance as well as final hearing.
Applying the said principle in the present
case, the tenant had filed his written
statement on 15th June, 2010 and submitted
his tender on 15th July, 2010, therefore, I do
not find any error in the finding of the
Court below that the tenant has deposited
1318
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the arrears of rent after the first date of
hearing. Thus, he was not entitled for the
benefit of Section 20(4) of the U.P. Act
No. 13 of 1972.
17. As regards the submission of Sri
Ojha that the tenant has deposited the entire
rent and the finding of the Court below that
there was a shortfall of amount is incorrect,
this Court finds that the finding of the Court
below that the rent is Rs.2,000/- per month
has been found to be correct in the earlier
part of this judgment. The tenant has
deposited the rent at the rate of Rs.1,000/-
per month. Thus, there is a shortfall of
Rs.1,58,000/- and for this reason also, his
claim for the benefit of Section 20(4) of the
U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 has rightly been
rejected by the Court below. The finding of
the Court below that the tenant has made a
default for more than four months, is a
finding of fact. Learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the revisionist-tenant could
not satisfy the Court that the said finding is
perverse. The Court below has noticed the
fact that the statement of D.W.-1 Awadh
Bihari that after receiving the notice he had
sent the rent of the months of October &
November, 2009 by money-order, was not
correct as no receipt of the money-order
was
filed
before
the
Court
below.
Therefore, said fact has been rightly ignored
by the Court below. The landlady has filed a
suit under Section 28(A) of the U.P. Act
No. 13 of 1972. Section 20(2)(A) of the
U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 provides that if a
tenant is in arrears for more than four
months and he fails to deposit the rent in
spite of the notice, then he shall be liable for
eviction. For the reasons stated above, the
finding of the Court below on Issue No. 4
also does not suffer from any error.
18. The revisional jurisdiction of
this Court under Section 25 of the
Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887
is limited. The Court can interfere under
this section only when the finding
recorded by the Court below is totally
perverse and is based on no evidence.
Learned counsel for the revisionist-tenant
has failed to point out any perversity in
the order of the Court below, as discussed
above. The findings of the Court below on
various points are based on documentary
as well as oral evidence. It has not been
pointed out that the Court below has
ignored
any
important
documentary
evidence filed by the tenant-revisionist or
it has taken into consider any fact, which
was not on the record.
19. After careful consideration of
the facts and circumstances of the case, I
am of the view that the revision lacks
merit and is liable to be dismissed. It is,
accordingly, dismissed.
20. Considering the facts and
circumstances of the case, the tenantrevisionist is granted three months' time to
vacate the premises in question on the
following conditions:
(i) The revisionist shall file an
undertaking within one month from today
before the Judge, Small Cause Court,
Kanpur Nagar that on or before the expiry
of the three months he will handover
peaceful possession to the landladyrespondent and shall not create any third
party interest in any manner.
(ii) For the period of three months,
which has been granted to him to vacate
the premises, he shall pay damages at the
rate of Rs.2,000/- per month for the use of
accommodation.
(iii) In case of default in compliance
of any of the conditions, the interim order
shall
stand
vacated.
3 All].
 Amit Agarwal Vs. Atul Gupta
1319
21. No order as to costs.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 12.11.2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SUDHIR AGARWAL, J.
Civil Misc. Transfer Application No. 519 of
2014
(U/s24 C.P.C.)
Amit Agarwal
...Petitioner
Versus
Atul Gupta
...Respondent
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Shashi Nandan, Sri Prabhakar Dwivedi,
Sri Anil Kumar
Counsel for the Respondent:
Sri K.R. Sirohi, Sri Pankaj Dubey
C.P.C.-Section 24-Transfer of Arbitration
Appeal pending before D.J. Merrut to any
other adjoining District-on ground by
conduct of presiding judge-no hope of fair
justice-bent upon to grant interim order
in favor of Respondent-held the ground of
transfer wholly vague unsubstantiated-no
ground for interference-rejected.
Held: Para-30 & 39
30.
If there is a deliberate attempt to
scandalize a judicial Officer of subordinate
Court, it is bound to shake confidence of
the litigating public in the system and has
to be tackled strictly. The damage is
caused not only to the reputation of the
concerned Judge, but, also to the fair
name of judiciary. Veiled threats, abrasive
behaviour, use of disrespectful language,
and,
at
times,
blatant
condemnatory
attacks, like the present one, are often
designedly employed with a view to tame
a Judge into submission to secure a
desired order. The foundation of our
system is based on the independence and
impartiality
of
the
men
having
responsibility to impart justice i.e. Judicial
Officers. If their confidence, impartiality
and reputation is shaken, it is bound to
affect the very independence of judiciary.
Any person, if allowed to make disparaging
and derogatory remarks against a Judicial
Officer, with impunity, is bound to result in
breaking down the majesty of justice.
39. In the light of the above exposition
of law, the pleadings in the case in hand
have been examined. The grounds taken
by
applicant
is
vague
and
wholly
unsubstantiated. The mere allegation is
not sufficient to justify transfer unless it
is
also
substantiated
by
relevant
material, which is not the case in hand.
No ground, therefore, justifying transfer
is made out under Section 24 C.P.C.
Case Law discussed:
AIR 1960 Kerela 91; AIR 2003 AP 312; 1914
(27) MLJ 645; AIR 1990 MP 320; (1882) ILR 5
All 60; (1979) Cri.L.J. 459(SC); 1990 (1) SCC
4; AIR 2008 SC 1333; AIR 2009 SC 1374; AIR
2009 SC 1773; (1938) 2 MLJ 249; AIR 1933
Lahore 635; AIR 1975 Delhi 42; AIR 1953
Orissa 46; AIR 1996 Kerela 113; AIR 1976 P &
H 321; 2007 (3) AWC 3119; AIR 1995
Karnataka 112; AIR 1981 Madas 54 or 24; AIR
1981 Madras 24; AIR 1988 Gujrat 63; AIR
2003 AP 448; AIR 2001 Culcutta 26; (1998) 7
SCC 248; 2013 (2) AWC 1546; AIR 2003 AP
312.
(Delivered by Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.)
1. Heard Sri Shashi Nandan, Senior
Advocate, assisted by Sri Prabhakar
Dwivedi,
learned
counsel
for
the
applicant,
Sri
K.R.Sirohi,
Senior
Advocate, assisted by Sri Pankaj Dubey,
learned counsel for opposite party and
perused the record.
2. This transfer application has been
filed under Section 24 C.P.C., seeking
transfer of non admitted Arbitration
Appeal No. Nil of 2014 (Atul Gupta Vs.
Amit Agarwal) pending in the Court of
District Judge, Meerut to any other