# Nusrat Ali v. Nagarpalika Sitapur & Anr - **Citation:** (2021) 3 ILRA 65 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2021-03-18 - **Case number:** Misc. Single No. 7153 of 2021 - **Bench:** Rajnish Kumar - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/nusrat-ali-v-nagarpalika-sitapur-anr-46941 - **Pages:** 4 ## Headnote (A) Civil Law - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 115 - Revision, Order 15 Rule 5 - Striking off defence for failure to deposit admitted rent, etc., Order 20 Rule 4 - judgments of a court of Small Causes need not contain more than points of determination and decision thereon, Provincial Small Causes Courts Act,1887 - Section 25 - Revision of decrees and orders of Courts of Small Causes. Case filed by the opposite party no.2(deceased) for arrears of rent and ejectment before the Judge, Small causes court - petitioner had appeared and filed his defence - not made compliance of Order 15 Rule 5 of CPC - defence was struck off - Petitioner filed a revision which has been dismissed. (Para - 4) HELD: - This Court is of the view that merely because the points of determination have not been set out is no ground for setting it aside. As the judgment has been passed after considering the material and evidence on record in accordance with law. Merely because a case on Section 115 CPC has been considered cannot be a ground to challenge the order. As such this Court does not find any illegality or error in the impugned orders. (Para - 7,10) Writ Petition dismissed. (E-6) List of Cases cited: - ## Text 3 All. Nusrat Ali Vs. Nagarpalika Sitapur & Anr. 65 U.P. Revenue Code are wide enough to examine the legality, propriety and regularity of any order passed in a suit or proceeding by any Subordinate Revenue Court in which no appeal lies. There are no fetters like those provided in Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. We must remember that when the Revenue Code was framed the legislature had before it the provisions of Section 96 and 97 and 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Had the Legislature intended that even a preliminary decree in a partition suit may be challenged in a regular first appeal, then it would have provided so either in the main section i.e. Section 207, or at least not created a specific bar under Section 209 to entertaining certain appeals including an appeal against a decree which is of an interim nature. 79. For the reasons as aforesaid, this Court finds that the Appeal was wrongly admitted by the Additional Commissioner, and also because the Additional Commissioners' order does not give any reason for entertaining the Appeal, the order impugned dated 21.01.2021 is set aside. 80. The writ petition stands allowed. ---------- (2021)03ILR A65 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: LUCKNOW 18.03.2021 BEFORE THE HON'BLE RAJNISH KUMAR, J. Misc. Single No. 7153 of 2021 Nusrat Ali ...Petitioner Versus Nagarpalika Sitapur & Anr. ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Ravindra Bajpai, P.R.S. Bajpai Counsel for the Respondents: Rajiv Raman Srivastava (A) Civil Law - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 115 - Revision, Order 15 Rule 5 - Striking off defence for failure to deposit admitted rent, etc., Order 20 Rule 4 - judgments of a court of Small Causes need not contain more than points of determination and decision thereon, Provincial Small Causes Courts Act,1887 - Section 25 - Revision of decrees and orders of Courts of Small Causes. Case filed by the opposite party no.2(deceased) for arrears of rent and ejectment before the Judge, Small causes court - petitioner had appeared and filed his defence - not made compliance of Order 15 Rule 5 of CPC - defence was struck off - Petitioner filed a revision which has been dismissed. (Para - 4) HELD: - This Court is of the view that merely because the points of determination have not been set out is no ground for setting it aside. As the judgment has been passed after considering the material and evidence on record in accordance with law. Merely because a case on Section 115 CPC has been considered cannot be a ground to challenge the order. As such this Court does not find any illegality or error in the impugned orders. (Para - 7,10) Writ Petition dismissed. (E-6) List of Cases cited: - 1. Mukesh Gupta Vs Vidit Kalsi, UP/2237/2014;2014(8) ADJ 733 2. Atar Singh & ors. Vs D.J., Jhansi & ors., AIR 1994 ALLD. 295 (Delivered by Hon'ble Rajnish Kumar, J.) (1) Heard Sri P.R.S. Bajpai, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rajiv 66 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES Raman Srivastava,Advocate who is appearing for the opposite party no.1. (2) This petition has been filed challenging the judgment and order dated 11.12.2019 passed in Revision No.03/2016 and judgment and order dated 29.02.2016 passed in Case No.02/2016. (3) Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned orders have been passed by the small Cause Court without making any point of determination in violation of Order 20 Rule 4 of CPC. He further submitted that the revision has been dismissed relying on a judgment of this Court in the case of Janak Raj V. Smt. Indu Nath 2018 (36) LCD 2314 in which Section 115 of CPC has been relied whereas the revision was filed under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act,1887. (4) Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the orders passed by the courts below and the documents placed on record, this Court finds that the case was filed by the opposite party no.2(deceased) for arrears of rent and ejectment before the Judge, Small causes court. The petitioner had appeared and filed his defence but since he had not made compliance of Order 15 Rule 5 of CPC, therefore his defence was struck off by means of the order dated 08.07.2014. Revision filed against the said order was also dismissed. Thereafter after considering the case on merit and hearing learned counsel for the plaintiff but no arguments were advanced by the defendant, the order dated 29.12.2016 was passed and the suit was decreed and the petitioner was directed to vacate the shop in question. The petitioner filed a revision which has been decided by means of the order dated 11.12.2019 after considering the grounds raised by the petitioner. (5) It appears that the shop in question was given to the petitioner on a rent of Rs.600/- per month for a period of 11 months with an advance amount of Rs.4,000/-. After expiry of the aforesaid period, notice was given to the petitioner and the tenancy was terminated. The suit was decreed and it was provided that Rs.4,000/- given in advance shall be adjusted in the due rent. (6) Order 20 Rule 4 of CPC provides that judgments of a court of Small Causes need not contain more than points of determination and decision thereon. Therefore it cannot be said that the judgment of a court of Small Causes must necessarily contain points of determination. As such a party alleging non compliance is also required to establish not mere non framing of point of determination but consequent failure of justice also to the party. (7) The petitioner had not made compliance of the Order 1 5 Rule 5 of CPC. Hence, his defence was struck off and the revision was also dismissed. Therefore it cannot be said that the suit has been decided in violation of Order 20 Rule 4 of CPC. The point of determination could have been framed only if the defence was on record and there were any points to be determined. Therefore it cannot be said that there was any illegality or irregularity in passing the order without point of determination. Therefore this Court is of the view that merely because the points of determination have not been set out is no ground for setting it aside. As the judgment has been passed after considering the material and evidence on record in accordance with law. (8) This Court in the case of Mukesh Gupta versus Vidit Kalsi;UP/2237 /2014;2014(8)ADJ 733 considered the 3 All. Nusrat Ali Vs. Nagarpalika Sitapur & Anr. 67 identical issue of non-framing of point of determination after considering several judgements and held that the said omission, if any, would not vitiate trial of the suit where parties appeared in case fully knowing rival claims and the defendant appeared in the case although his evidence was struck off and the Court passed the judgment and order after considering the case in accordance with law. (9) This Court in the case of Atar Singh and others versus District judge, Jhansi and others; AIR 1994 ALLD. 295 has held that the judgment can be challenged in execution proceedings only on the ground of lack of inherent jurisdiction and there is no provision that if the decree is not in accordance with order XX Rule 4 CPC it shall be treated as a nullity. The relevant paragraphs 10 and 13 are extracted below:- "10. The revisional court may set aside the decision of a Judge, Small Causes Court which is not in accordance with the provisions of O.XX, R.4, C.P.C. but such judgment cannot be said to be without jurisdiction and a nullity merely because the judgment is not in accordance with the provisions of O. XX, R. 4, C.P.C. There is a distinction between a decree which is a nullity and a decree which is not according to law. A decree is nullity when the court lacks inherent jurisdiction to pass a decree or it is against a dead person or passed against some substantive provisions of law which prohibits passing of a decree but a decree which is not according to law cannot itself be treated as a nullity. This is clear from the decision of the Supreme Court in Kiran Singh v. Chaman Paswan, AIR 1954 SC 340. In Hira Lal Patni v. Sri Kali Nath, AIR 1962 SC 199, their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed (at p. 200):-- "The validity of a decree can be challenged in execution proceedings only on the ground that the Court which passed the decree was lacking in inherent jurisdiction in the sense that it could not have seisin of the case because the subject matter was wholly foreign to its jurisdiction or that the defendant was dead at the time the suit had been instituted, or decree passed, or some such other ground which could have the effect of rendering the court entirely lacking in jurisdiction in respect of the subject matter of the suit or over the parties to it. But in the instant case there was no such inherent lack of jurisdiction." 13. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon the decision Smt. Kau-shalya Devi v. K. L. Bansal, AIR 1970 SC 838. In this case a compromise was entered into between the parties and such compromise decree was sought to be executed. The Supreme Court held that the decree was passed on the basis of a compromise which was in contravention of Section 13(1) of the Act. In that case the decree was against the substantive provision of the Act. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court held that (at p. 839): "On the plain wording of Section 13(1) the Court was forbidden to pass the decree. The decree is nullity and cannot be enforced in execution." There is no provision under the Code of Civil Procedures or the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 that if a decree which is not in accordance with order XX, Rule 4 C.P.C. shall be treated as a nullity. In this case it is relevant to note that the petitioner had not filed any written statement in the suit. The case proceeded ex parte against him. The plaintiff 68 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES examined himself and produced the papers. In these circumstances, there was no controversy raised before the Judge, Small Causes Court and the Judge, Small Causes Court had only to consider the case of the plaintiff and evidence produced by him. It was not a case where the judgment itself could have been treated as a nullity if the judgment was not written in accordance with the provisions of Order XX, Rule 4 C.P.C. (10) The revision has also been decided after considering the grounds raised by the petitioner. Therefore merely because a case on Section 115 CPC has been considered cannot be a ground to challenge the order. As such this Court does not find any illegality or error in the impugned orders dated 11.12.2019 and 29.02.2016. (11) In view of above, the writ petition is misconceived and lacks merit. It is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ---------- (2021)03ILR A68 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: LUCKNOW 19.03.2021 BEFORE THE HON'BLE VIKAS KUNVAR SRIVASTAV, J. Misc. Single No. 7693 of 2021 Riyazuddin @ Puttan ...Petitioner Versus Commissioner Devi Patan Gonda & Anr. ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Rajesh Kumar Counsel for the Respondents: G.A. (A) Civil Law - Uttar Pradesh Goonda Act, 1970 - Section 2 - Gonda - Section 3(1) - Externment, etc. of Gondas , Section 6 - Appeal - not only an administrative but also a judicial order must be supported by reasons, recorded in it - cardinal principle which must be observed by every authority while passing an order, from which civil/criminal consequences flow, to assign reasons for reaching at such conclusion - This rule to be observed by every authority while sitting into capacity of judicial, quasi-judicial as well in administrative capacity whatsoever may be.(Para - 8,12) Dispute is between two individually litigating parties only with regard to the dispute as to landed property - considering the matter under Goondas Act - no discussion on the applicability of the Act - impugned order passed by the District Magistrate is lacking and non-speaking in this regard. (Para -11) HELD: - The Commissioner directed to decide the Appeal filed under Section 6 of Uttar Pradesh Goonda Act, 1970 on merit expeditiously with all practicable promptness within a period of one month by a reasoned and speaking order or if by reason of any administrative business it is not possible to decide the same within aforesaid period of one month, to decide on such other date not beyond three months from the date, the certified copy of the order is placed before him. (Para - 15) Writ petition disposed of. (E-6) List of Cases cited: - 1. St. of Orissa Vs Dhaniram Luhar, (2004) 5 SCC 568 2. Secretary & Curator, Victoria Memorial Hall Vs Howrah Ganatantrik Nagrik Samity & ors., (2010) 3 SCC 732 (Delivered by Hon'ble Vikas Kunvar Srivastav, J.) 1. The case is called out.