# Ghanshyam Das Agarwal v. Anoop Kumar & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 12 ILRA 761
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-11-23
- **Case number:** Matters Under Article 227 No. 2370 of 2023
- **Bench:** Neeraj Tiwari
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ghanshyam-das-agarwal-v-anoop-kumar-ors-51351
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Civil Law-The Code of Civil Procedure,
1980-Order 1 Rule 8---Filing of written
St.ment after a period of 90 days- Limitation
under Order 8 Rule 1 CPC cannot be extended
in routine manner and shall only be done in
exceptional case and further in such cases, it is
required on the part of Court to give reasons for
condoning the delay--- Once, it is undisputed
that publication has been made and application
has been filed before the Trial Court, in all
eventuality, notice is deemed to be served after
90 days from the date of submission of
application along with publication before the
Trial Court. Therefore, notice is sufficient---
Impugned orders set aside.

Petition allowed. (E-15)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

12 All. Ghanshyam Das Agarwal Vs. Anoop Kumar & Ors.
761
----------
(2024) 12 ILRA 761
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 23.11.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE NEERAJ TIWARI, J.

Matters Under Article 227 No. 2370 of 2023

Ghanshyam Das Agarwal ...Petitioner
Versus
Anoop Kumar & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Kaushalendra Nath Singh, Tarun Varma

Counsel for the Respondents:
Bhanu Pratap Singh, Surendra Singh

Civil Law-The Code of Civil Procedure,
1980-Order 1 Rule 8---Filing of written
St.ment after a period of 90 days- Limitation
under Order 8 Rule 1 CPC cannot be extended
in routine manner and shall only be done in
exceptional case and further in such cases, it is
required on the part of Court to give reasons for
condoning the delay--- Once, it is undisputed
that publication has been made and application
has been filed before the Trial Court, in all
eventuality, notice is deemed to be served after
90 days from the date of submission of
application along with publication before the
Trial Court. Therefore, notice is sufficient---
Impugned orders set aside.

Petition allowed. (E-15)

List of Cases cited:

1. Ramesh Flowers Pvt. Ltd.Vs Mr. Sumit Srimal;
C.R.P. (MD) Nos. 1853 & 1854 of 2024

2. Atcom Technologies Ltd. Vs Y.A. Chunawala
& Co.; (2018) 6 Supreme Court Cases 639

3. Desh Raj Vs Balkishan (dead) Through
Proposed Legal Representative Ms. Rohini;
(2020) 2 Supreme Court Cases 708.
(Delivered by Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari, J.)

1. Heard Sri Tarun Varma along with
Sri Ridham Gupta, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Sri Ashok Malviya, advocate
holding brief of Sri Bhanu Pratap Singh,
learned counsel for the respondents.

2. Present petition has been filed with
following prayer;

"Issue writ, order or direction in
the nature calling for the record of the case
and quashing the orders dated 13.09.2022
and 17.01.2023."

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that petitioner has filed Suit No.
363 of 2007 impleading the respondent nos.
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 & 7 as defendant nos. 1, 2, 3,
4, 5, 6 & 7 respectively. In the said suit,
notice
was
issued
on
17.01.2018.
Defendant no. 3 i.e. respondent no. 7, who
is brother of other respondents after
receiving
notice,
has
filed
written
submission
along
with
delay
and
considering the same in accordance with
under Order 8 Rule 1 CPC, Court vide
order dated 10.09.2021 has rejected the
same.

4. He next submitted that notices were
not served upon defendant nos. 2, 4, 5, 6 &
7, therefore, petitioner/plaintiff has moved
application 17Ga/18Ga for publication of
summon in newspaper, which was allowed
vide order dated 23.01.2018. Pursuant to
that publication was made in newspaper on
07.02.2018
and
submitted
copy
of
newspaper along with application 19Ka2
before the Trial Court on 25.01.2018. After
publication, for the first time, defendant
nos. 2 4, 5, 6 & 7 have filed application No.
47C dated 2.7.2022 along with affidavit on
the ground that application 19Ka2 of the
762 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
petitioner has not been disposed off, there
is no order of Court about service of
summon, only after perusal of order sheet,
he could know about the facts and filed
application with written submission. The
said application was allowed by Civil
Judge (Senior Divison), Gorakhpur vide
order dated 13.09.2022. Against that
petitioner has filed Civil Revision No. 89
of 2022 and revisional Court has affirmed
the finding of Trial Court vide order dated
17.01.2023. He next submitted that Trial
Court
has
passed
the
order
dated
23.01.2018 for publication, which was
immediately complied with and news paper
was submitted before the Trial Court along
with application 19Ka2. Therefore, it is
duty upon the Court to dispose off the
application and in case, same is not
decided, petitioner is not responsible for
that. In support of his contention, he has
placed reliance upon the judgment of
Madras High Court in the matter of
Ramesh Flowers Private Limited Vs. Mr.
Sumit Srimal; C.R.P. (MD) Nos. 1853 &
1854 of 2024.

5. He next submitted that along with
application No. 47C dated 2.7.2022, no
delay condonation application has been
filed, even then, delay of more than one
year has been condoned treating the written
submission within time. He next submitted
that in non commercial matter, provisions
of Order 8 Rule 1 CPC is not mandatory,
but in regular suit, if written submission
has been accepted beyond limitation,
reasons must have been assigned by the
Court. He also pointed out that Case of
defendant no. 3 is identical to the case of
defendant nos. 2, 4, 5, 6 & 7 whose written
submissions have been rejected on the
ground of delay. Therefore, this application
may not having treated in time and be
rejected. He next submitted that finding of
the Trial Court is absolutely perverse and
Court relying upon some judgments has
held that those are related to Commercial
dispute. He next submitted that petitioner is
not treating any parity with commercial
case and his case is undisputedly not a
commercial case. Even that in case, if
written submission is accepted beyond the
limitation provided under Order 8 Rule 1
CPC, reasons must have been recorded,
which
is
absolutely
missing
in
the
impugned order dated 13.09.2022. In
support of his contention, he has placed
reliance upon the judgment of Apex Court
in the matters of Atcom Technologies Ltd.
Vs. Y.A. Chunawala & Co.; (2018) 6
Supreme Court Cases 639 & Desh Raj Vs.
Balkishan
(dead)
Through
Proposed
Legal Representative Ms. Rohini; (2020) 2
Supreme Court Cases 708.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for
the
respondents
has
vehemently
opposed
the
submission
made
by
learned counsel for the petitioner and
submitted that case of the respondents
is not a commercial case, therefore,
written submission may be accepted
even after 90 days as provided under
Order 8 Rule 1 CPC. He next submitted
that Court has not passed the order upon
the application 19Ka2 about service of
summon, therefore, it is open for the
defendants to file written submission
before the Trial Court for disposal of
suit and that would have been treated in
time. He next submitted that his case
may not be compared with defendant no.
3 as both are standing on entirely
different
footing.
Trial
Court
has
decided the issue after considering the
various judgment. He also pointed out
that suit is still pending and in case
objection is rejected, defendants would
suffer irreparable loss.
12 All. Ghanshyam Das Agarwal Vs. Anoop Kumar & Ors.
763

7. In rejoinder argument, learned
counsel for the petitioner submitted that
defendant nos. 2, 4, 5, 6 & 7 have not come
with clean hands before the Court. He
pointed out that all the defendants are
brothers residing in the same premises i.e.
address of defendant no. 3. Even, in
counter affidavit filed before this Court, he
had written same address. In fact, they were
having full knowledge of pendency of suit
and one of their brother has made an
attempt to file written submission and same
was rejected, but they have not turned up
and not disclosed any reason as to how they
went to Court and obtained information
about pendency of Suit.

8.
I
have
considered
the
rival
submissions advanced by learned counsel
for the parties and perused the record as
well as judgments relied upon.

9. Undisputedly, Suit No. 363 of 2007
was filed against the real brothers, residing
in the same premises and out of them,
defendant no. 3 has received the notice.
Ultimately, he has filed written submission
with delay, which was rejected vide order
dated 10.09.2021.

10. Further, as the notice was not
served upon defendant nos. 2, 4, 5, 6 & 7,
petitioner has moved application for
publication in newspaper, which was
allowed vide order dated 23.01.2018.
Pursuant to that, publication was made on
07.02.2018 and application 19Ka2 along
with news paper also been filed before the
Trial Court. Upon which, Trial Court has
not
passed
any
order
for
disposal.
Defendant nos. 2, 4, 5, 6 & 7 has filed
application dated 2.7.2022 along with
affidavit for filing written submission only
on the ground that application 19Ka2 has
not been disposed of. Thereafter, written
submission was treated in time application
was allowed by the impugned order dated
13.09.2022 and affirmed by the revisional
court vide order dated 17.01.2023.

11. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has rightly pointed out that order of
publication
is
complied
with
and
application along with publication has been
submitted before the Trial Court. In case,
order of disposal has not been passed upon
the said application, petitioner is not
responsible for the same and for that, he
should not be put to any disadvantageous
position. In the impugned order, it is
observed that publication was made and
application 19Ka2 has been filed, which
has not been disposed of by the Trial Court.
It is very surprising that on one hand, it is
accepted by the Trial Court that application
along with news paper has been filed, but
the same was not disposed of, which is
inaction on the part of Court itself and on
the other hand, benefit of same is given to
the defendants, which cannot be accepted.
The similar issue was before the Madras
High Court in the matter Ramesh Flowers
Private Limited (supra) and Court has
taken very same view. Relevant paragraphs
are being quoted below;

"9. I am not able to agree with
the contention of the learned counsel
appearing for the respondent. No doubt,
the mistake of the court should not harm a
party. But, no party can take advantage of
the
lapse
committed
by
the
court
particularly when it is contrary to the
statute. It was held in Athiappa Gounder v.
Athiappa Pandaram (1967) 1 MLJ 392(FB)
that the maxim could be invoked and
applied in individual cases to a party who
has done all he should do under the statute
and is prejudiced solely by the delay or
mistake of the court. When the statute has
764 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
prescribed a certain time line, it was
incumbent on the part of the defendant to
adhere to the same. If he is unable to do so,
he must offer a proper explanation and
seek condonation. Without doing so, the
defendant cannot ride piggy back on the
mechanical endorsements made by the trial
court. I hold that the defendant cannot take
advantage of the aforesaid maxim."

12. Now other arguments of learned
counsel for the parties are concerned, Order
8 Rule 1 CPC shall only be mandatory in
case of commercial matters and not in non
commercial matters. For ready reference,
Order 8 Rule 1 CPC is quoted below;

"1.
Written
statement.-
The
defendant shall, within thirty days from the
date of service of summons on him, present
a written statement of his defence:

Provided
that
where
the
defendant fails to file the written statement
within the said period of thirty days, he
shall be allowed to file the same on such
other day, as may be specified by the
Court, for reasons to be recorded in
writing, but which shall not be later than
ninety days from the date of service of
summons."

13. In the application, petitioner
himself stated that it is a non commercial
case, therefore, Order 8 Rule 1 CPC is not
mandatory and in an exceptional case,
written submission may also be accepted
beyond the time i.e. 90 days, but for that,
reasons are required to be stated. Trial
Court while deciding the issue relied on the
pretext that Order 8 Rule 1 CPC is
mandatory only for the commercial case
and as the present case is not commercial.
There is no dispute on the point that Order
8 Rule 1 CPC is not mandatory in non
commercial case, but even though in an
exceptional case, it is required on the part
of Court to record findings for accepting
the written submission beyond limitation,
which is absolutely missing in this matter.
Therefore, such finding is absolutely
perverse.

14. It is also undisputed that along
with written submission, no application for
condoning the delay along with reasons
have been filed, but Trial Court without
considering the mandate of Order 8 Rule 1
CPC, interpreted by the Courts from time
to time, has straightway allowed the
application absolutely on different facts. It
is mandatory requirement to record reasons
for accepting the written submission, if
filed beyond limitation given in Order 8
Rule 1 CPC even if, the matter is non
commercial in nature. In impugned orders,
no reasons have been assigned by the Court
as to why written submission is accepted
beyond limitation without accompanied
with
delay
condonation
application.
Therefore, orders are absolutely bad.

15. The Apex Court in the matter of
Atcom Technologies Ltd. (supra) has taken
the very strict view that onus upon the
defendant is of a higher degree to plead and
satisfactory demonstrate a valid reason for
not filing the written statement. Relevant
paragraphs are being quoted below;

"18. We shall proceed on the
basis that summons in Suit No. 4870 of
1999 were served only in the year 2009. In
this behalf, it may be stated that in this suit,
unconditional leave to defend was granted
by the learned Single Judge on March 16,
2002. By the same order, all three suits
were directed to be tried together.
Therefore, Vakalatnama in the suit was
also filed and on the dates fixed before the
Court, respondents were appearing having
12 All. Ghanshyam Das Agarwal Vs. Anoop Kumar & Ors.
765
knowledge about the Suit No. 4870 of 1999
as well. Obviously, this leave to defend was
granted after the respondents had put in
appearance and filed application for grant
of leave to defend. Thus, summons in the
suit were served upon the respondents,
albeit, in Form 4 of Appendix B, as
stipulated in Rule 2 of Order 37 of Civil
Procedure Code, 1908. May be, thereafter,
Writ of Summons were not served again
upon the respondents. However, in any
case, these summons were served in the
year 2009. Therefore, it was incumbent
upon the respondents to show as to in what
manner they were prevented from filing the
written statement.

19. It has to be borne in mind that
as per the provisions of Order 8 Rule 1 of
the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the
defendant is obligated to present a written
statement of his defence within thirty days
from the date of service of summons.
Proviso thereto enables the Court to extend
the period upto ninety days from the date of
service of summons for sufficient reasons.
Order 8 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 reads as under:

"1.
Written
statement.-
The
defendant shall, within thirty days from the
date of service of summons on him, present
a written statement of his defence:

Provided
that
where
the
defendant fails to file the written statement
within the said period of thirty days, he
shall be allowed to file the same on such
other day, as may be specified by the
Court, for reasons to be recorded in
writing, but which shall not be later than
ninety days from the date of service of
summons."

20. This provision has come up
for interpretation before this Court in
number of cases. No doubt, the words
'shall not be later than ninety days' do not
take away the power of the Court to accept
written statement beyond that time and it is
also held that the nature of the provision is
procedural and it is not a part of
substantive law. At the same time, this
Court has also mandated that time can be
extended only in exceptionally hard cases.
We would like to reproduce the following
discussion from Salem Advocate Bar
Association, v. Union of India, (2005) 6
SCC 344:

"21. ...There is no restriction in
Order 8 Rule 10 that after expiry of ninety
days, further time cannot be granted. The
court has wide power to "make such order
in relation to the suit as it thinks fit".
Clearly, therefore, the provision of Order 8
Rule 1 providing for the upper limit of 90
days to file written statement is directory.
Having said so, we wish to make it clear
that the order extending time to file written
statement cannot be made in routine. The
time can be extended only in exceptionally
hard cases. While extending time, it has to
be borne in mind that the legislature has
fixed the upper time-limit of 90 days. The
discretion of the court to extend the time
shall not be so frequently and routinely
exercised so as to nullify the period fixed
by Order 8 Rule 1."

21. In such a situation, onus upon
the defendant is of a higher degree to plead
and satisfactorily demonstrate a valid
reason for not filing the written statement
within thirty days. When that is a
requirement, could it be a ground to
condone delay of more than 5 years even
when it is calculated from the year 2009,
only because of the reason that Writ of
Summons were not served till 2009?

22. We fail to persuade ourselves
with this kind of reasoning given by the
High Court in condoning the delay, thereby
disregarding the provisions of Order 8
Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908 and the spirit behind it. This reason of
766 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the High Court that delay was condoned
'by balancing the rights and equities' is
far- fetched and, in the process, abnormal
delay in filing the written statement is
condoned without addressing the relevant
factor, viz. whether the respondents had
furnished
proper
and
satisfactory
explanation for such a delay. The approach
of the High Court is clearly erroneous in
law and cannot be countenanced. No
doubt, the provisions of Order 8 Rule 1 of
the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 are
procedural in nature and, therefore, hand
maid of justice. However, that would not
mean that the defendant has right to take as
much time as he wants in filing the written
statement, without giving convincing and
cogent reasons for delay and the High
Court has to condone it mechanically."

16. Again the similar issue was before
the Apex Court in the matter of Desh Raj
(supra). Relevant paragraphs are being
quoted below;

"13. As regard the timeline for
filing of written statement in a noncommercial dispute, the observations of
this Court in a catena of decisions, most
recently in Atcom Technologies Ltd. v. Y.A.
Chunawal and Co. holds the field.
Unamended Order VIII Rule I, CPC
continues to be directory and does not do
away with the inherent discretion of Courts
to condone certain delays.

14. Let us, therefore, consider
whether the appellant has made out a case
of
exercising
such
discretionary
jurisdiction? The present civil suit had
been filed by the respondent for a decree of
specific performance of an agreement to
sell one floor of an ancestral property
located in Devli Village, Delhi and
permanent injunction against alienation of
the same by petitioner to third parties.
Counsel for respondent has not contested
the non-commercial nature of the dispute,
and even independently we are satisfied
that the dispute does not fall within the
parameters specified under Section 2(c) of
the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and in
particular
sub-clause
(vii),
as
the
immovable property here is not of a nature
which is "used exclusively in trade or
commerce". Hence, the appellant is correct
in
contending
that
the
High Court
overlooked the nature of the dispute and
mistakenly applied the ratio of a case
rendered in light of a modified version of
the Code of Civil Procedure, which would
only be applicable to commercial disputes.

15.
However,
it
would
be
gainsaid that although the unamended
Order 8 Rule 1 of CPC is directory, it
cannot be interpreted to bestow a free hand
to on any litigant or lawyer to file written
statement at their own sweet-will and/or to
prolong the lis. The legislative objective
behind prescription of timelines under CPC
must be given due weightage so that the
disputes are resolved in a time-bound
manner. Inherent discretion of Courts, like
the ability to condone delays under Order
VIII Rule 1 is a fairly defined concept and
its contours have been shaped through
judicial
decisions
over
the
ages.
Illustratively, extreme hardship or delays
occurring due to factors beyond control of
parties despite proactive diligence, may be
just
and
equitable
instances
for
condonation of delay.

16. However, it is clear from the
facts
on
record
that
numerous
opportunities had been accorded to the
appellant. He was served on 01.05.2017
and entered appearance through counsel
on 15.05.2017. As per Order 8 Rule 1 of
CPC, the appellant ideally ought to have
filed his written statement by 31.05.2017;
and at the very latest by 30.07.2017. In
12 All. Ghanshyam Das Agarwal Vs. Anoop Kumar & Ors.
767
addition to two separate deadlines for
filing of the written statement within the 90day time-frame prescribed by the 'original'
Order VIII Rule 1, the Civil Court even
post expiry of the 90-day period again gave
one
last
and
final
opportunity
on
18.09.2017 subject to payment of costs of
Rs 3,000. None of these deadlines were
complied with. Even on 11.10.2017, when
the Court finally closed the appellant's
ability to file written statement and struckoff his defence from the record, no attempt
was made to comply with the process of
law.

17. It was only on 02.11.2017,
after a delay of 95 days post the maximum
extendable period under the Proviso of
Order VIII Rule 1, CPC that the appellant
claimed to have filed his written statement.
Curiously however, even by the next
hearing on 03.11.2017, the appellant had
failed to provide a copy of the written
statement to the respondent as had been
noted by the Civil Court.

18. The only defence taken to
these repeated and blatant lapses is that the
appellant's counsel was not turning up. No
attempt has been made to even proffer a
reasoned justification or explanation, and
it is clear that appellant is seeking
condonation in a casual manner. This
ought not to be permitted or encouraged.
Courts must act stringently to ensure that
all
proceedings
are
decided
within
reasonable time, and it is but the duty of
the judicial system to cultivate a culture of
respecting deadlines and time of the Court,
its officers as well as of adversaries.

19. Routine condonations and
cavalier attitudes towards the process of
law affects the administration of justice. It
affects docket management of Courts and
causes avoidable delays, cost escalations
and chaos. The effect of this is borne not
only by the litigants, but also commerce in
the country and the public-in-general who
spend
decades
mired
in
technical
processes.

20. It is obvious from the record
that nothing prevented the appellant from
filing the written statement through counsel
or in person. He has, thus, failed to give
any cogent reason for the delay and is
unable to satisfy due diligence on his part
though he is right in his submission that the
High Court erroneously relied upon the
ratio of Oku Tech."

17. Therefore, in light of Order 8 Rule
1 CPC along with interpretation made by
the Court, it is absolutely clear that
limitation under Order 8 Rule 1 CPC
cannot be extended in routine manner and
shall only be done in exceptional case and
further in such cases, it is required on the
part of Court to give reasons for condoning
the delay.

18.
It
is
very
surprising
that
application filed by the defendants for
filing written submission is based upon
only one ground that application 19Ka2 has
not been disposed of and contrary to that,
application was allowed distinguishing the
case of defendant nos. 2, 4, 5, 6 & 7 with
defendant no. 3.

19. Once, there is no such pleading in
the application, Court cannot impose its
own finding beyond the pleading, therefore,
this finding is also absolutely perverse.
Therefore this cannot be a ground for
allowing the application filed by defendant
nos. 2, 4, 5, 6 & 7. In fact, neither in
application nor in pleading, no such parity
has been claimed from defendant no. 3
itself and Court has imposed its own
finding beyond pleading.
768 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

20. In fact, it is required on the part of
Trial Court to decide the application
19Ka2, which was not decided, but Trial
Court has given benefit of its own inaction
to the defendant nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 & 7 which
is not permissible in law.

21. Now, coming to the consequenses
of non disposal of application 19Ka2.
Once, it is undisputed that publication has
been made and application has been filed
before the Trial Court, in all eventuality,
notice is deemed to be served after 90 days
from the date of submission of application
along with publication before the Trial
Court. Therefore, notice is sufficient.

22. In view of the facts and law
discussed
hereinabove,
orders
dated
13.09.2022 & 17.01.2023 are set aside and
writ petition is allowed.

23. No order as to costs.
----------
(2024) 12 ILRA 768
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.12.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AJIT KUMAR, J.

S.C.C. Revision No. 97 of 2024
Connected With
S.C.C. Revision No. 5 of 2024

Om Prakash & Anr. ...Revisionists
Versus
Bn Public School & Ors.
 ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Revisionists:
Arvind Srivastava

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
Arun Kumar
Civil
Law
-
Code
of
Civil
Procedure,1908-Order IX R 13 - Section
151-Petitioner
-tenant
of
the
landlord
respondent-subject to an eviction suit for
recovery of arrears of rent-the suit proceeded
ex parte against the Petitioner-petitioner
moved an application initially under Section
151 CPC registered as Misc. Case No. 1 of
2016 for recall of the ex parte judgment and
decree. This application dated 30.03.2016
ultimately came to be rejected by the court
on 04.04.2016 recording this fact that
neither-the compliance of the provision under
Section 17 of the Provincial Small Causes
Court Act was made, nor application was filed
under Order IX Rule 13 CPC. The Court also
observed that the application in these
circumstances filed under Section 151 CPC
was not maintainable-rejected - revision being
filed-the same was withdrawn without any
further liberty - the second recall application
before the court under Order IX Rule 13 was
clearly not maintainable.

Revision dismissed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

1.
Order
on
C.M.
Delay
Condonation
Application NO.138010 of 2016

2. Shakti Tubes Ltd. Vs St. of Bihar &
ors.(2009) 1 Supreme Court Cases 786

3. Pankajbhai Rameshbhai Zalavadia Vs
Jethabhai Kalabhai Zalavadia (Deceased)
through LRs & ors.2018 0 AIR (SC) 490/ 2017
0 Supreme (SC) 963

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ajit Kumar, J.)

1. Heard Shri Arvind Srivastava,
learned Advocate appearing for revision
applicant and Shri Ved Byas Mishra,
learned Advocate appearing for landlord
respondents.

2.
By
means
of
this
revision
application instituted under Section 25 of
the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act,