# Piyush Shukla v. Ram Kumar Gupta

- **Citation:** (2024) 4 ILRA 763
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-03-12
- **Bench:** Ashutosh Srivastava
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/piyush-shukla-v-ram-kumar-gupta-51849
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Law
-
The
Code
of
Civil
Procedure, 1908 - Order 15 Rule 5 -
Revision - Provincial Small Causes Court
Act, 1887 - Section 25 - Revision of
decrees and orders of Courts of Small
Causes - Order of the Revisional Court
suffers
from
patent
illegality
and
irregularity if it decides the revision
without addressing objections regarding
its maintainability. (Para 9-10)

Landlord filed SCC Suit - Tenant ejectment -
Recovery of arrears and damages of rent for use
and occupation - Tenant accused of rent default
- Objection to landlord's application under Order
15 Rule 5 CPC - Initial ex parte proceedings -
Disputes regarding rent deposits and interests -
hence petition. (Para 3, 4, 5)

HELD: - Revisional Court misconstrued and
misinterpreted the order of this Court and
ignored its mandate. Order dated 19.12.2023 by
the Revisional Court set aside due to noncompliance
with
procedural
mandates.
Revisional Court is directed to decide the
objections
regarding
maintainability
before
addressing the merits within three months.
(Para 9-10)

Petition allowed. (E-7)

## Text

4 All. M/s Shiv Shakti Infra Vision Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
763
liable to punishment if he proves that the
offence
was
committed
without
his
knowledge, or that he had exercised all due
diligence to prevent the commission of such
offence:

Provided further that where a
person is nominated as a Director of a
Company by virtue of his holding any office
or employment in the Central Government or
State Government or a financial corporation
owned
or
controlled
by
the
Central
Government or the State Government, as the
case may be, he shall not be liable for
prosecution under this Chapter.

(2)
Notwithstanding
anything
contained in sub-section (1), where any
offence under this Act, has been committed
by a company and it is proved that the
offence has been committed with the
consent or connivance of, or is attributable
to, any neglect on the part of, any director,
manager, secretary or other officer of the
company,
such
director,
manager,
secretary or other officer shall also be
deemed to be guilty of that offence and
shall be liable to be proceeded against
and punished accordingly."

17. On a reading of the said provision,
it is plain as day that if a person who
commits offence under Section 138 of the
Act is a company, the company as well as
every person/officer in charge of and
responsible to the company for the conduct
of business of the company at the time of
commission of offence is deemed to be
guilty of the offence. The first proviso
carves out under what circumstances the
criminal liability would not be fastened.
Sub-section (2) enlarges the criminal
liability by incorporating the concepts of
connivance, negligence and consent that
engulfs many categories of officers. It is
worth noting that in both the provisions,
there is a 'deemed' concept of criminal
liability.

18. Counsel for the applicants has not
been able to point out any such illegality
much less than any abuse of court's process
which may persuade this Court to interfere
in the impugned order. The impugned order
reflects judicial application of mind. There
appears no good ground to castigate the
impugned order. The view taken by the
court below seems to be correct and even
this Court does not have reason to take a
different view in the matter.

19. Having regard to the facts and
circumstances of the case, after perusing
the impugned order as well as the materials
brought on record and having considered
the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the parties, I do not find any
good ground to quash the impugned order.
Hence, the prayer made in the application
is refused.

20. With the aforesaid observations,
the present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is
devoid of merits and is, accordingly,
dismissed.
----------
(2024) 4 ILRA 763
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 12.03.2024
BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA, J.

Matters U/A 227 No.602 of 2024 (Civil)

Piyush Shukla ...Petitioner
Versus
Ram Kumar Gupta ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Prakhar Tandon
764 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Counsel for the Respondent:
Sri Shivkant Singh

(A)
Civil
Law
-
The
Code
of
Civil
Procedure, 1908 - Order 15 Rule 5 -
Revision - Provincial Small Causes Court
Act, 1887 - Section 25 - Revision of
decrees and orders of Courts of Small
Causes - Order of the Revisional Court
suffers
from
patent
illegality
and
irregularity if it decides the revision
without addressing objections regarding
its maintainability. (Para 9-10)

Landlord filed SCC Suit - Tenant ejectment -
Recovery of arrears and damages of rent for use
and occupation - Tenant accused of rent default
- Objection to landlord's application under Order
15 Rule 5 CPC - Initial ex parte proceedings -
Disputes regarding rent deposits and interests -
hence petition. (Para 3, 4, 5)

HELD: - Revisional Court misconstrued and
misinterpreted the order of this Court and
ignored its mandate. Order dated 19.12.2023 by
the Revisional Court set aside due to noncompliance
with
procedural
mandates.
Revisional Court is directed to decide the
objections
regarding
maintainability
before
addressing the merits within three months.
(Para 9-10)

Petition allowed. (E-7)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ashutosh
Srivastava, J.)

1. Heard Shri Prakhar Tandon, learned
counsel
for
the
petitioner
and
Shri
Shivakant Singh, learned counsel for the
respondent.

2. This petition under Article 227 of
the Constitution of India has been filed for
setting aside the order dated 19.12.2023
passed by the learned Addl. District Judge,
Court No. 1, Kanpur Nagar in SCC
Revision No. 240 of 2022 (Ram Kumar
Gupta versus Piyush Shukla) whereby and
whereunder, the revision has been allowed
and the order dated 17.8.2022 passed by the
learned
Judge,
Small
Causes
Court
whereby deferring the consideration of the
application under Order 15 Rule 5 CPC
moved by the landlord/respondent after
receipt of evidence at the time of final
judgment has been set aside and direction
has been issued to proceed with the suit
only after deciding the application under
Order 15 Rule 5 CPC.

3. The facts giving rise to the
controversy involved between the parties
lie
in
a
narrow
compass.
The
plaintiff/respondent has instituted a SCC
Suit No. 280 of 2017 for ejectment of the
tenant/petitioner and for recovery of arrears
of
rent
and
damages
for
use
and
occupation. The rate of rent alleged by the
landlord/respondent
in
the
plaint
is
Rs.1500/- per month. The tenant/petitioner
has appeared in the suit proceedings and
has
filed
his
written
statement
on
27.10.2018. The landlord/respondent filed
an application under Order 15 Rule 5 CPC
alleging that the tenant/petitioner has
committed default in the payment of extra
rent and prayed for striking off the defence
of
the
tenant/petitioner.
The
said
application under Order 15 Rule 5 CPC
was objected to by the tenant/petitioner by
filing objections. In the objections, it was
clearly stated that the suit was instituted on
9.11.2017.
When
the
tenant/petitioner
appeared in the proceedings, the suit was
proceeding exparte against him. After
recall of the order to proceed exparte, the
tenant/petitioner on 31.8.2018 submitted
the tender of Rs.57,250/- to be passed. The
tender was passed on 27.9.2018 and the
amount
was
deposited
by
the
tenant/petitioner on 1.10.2018. It was also
stated that the landlord/respondent had
demanded
rent
from
1.2.2016
to
31.12.2018 i.e. 35 months. The rent works
4 All. Piyush Shukla Vs. Ram Kumar Gupta
765
out to Rs.52,500/-. Interest @ 9% per
annum works out to Rs.4,725/- total works
out to Rs.57,225/- and a sum of Rs.57,250/-
was got deposited. The plaintiff/respondent
calculated the amount of interest on
Rs.52,500/-
incorrectly.
The
tenant/petitioner
is
also
regularly
depositing the monthly rent of Rs.1500/-.

4. The learned Judge, Small Causes
Court vide its order dated 17.8.2022 being
of the view that there was a dispute
regarding the amount tendered, which
could be adjudicated only after receipt of
evidence of the parties deferred the
consideration of the application under
Order 15 Rule 5 CPC at the time of final
decision of the suit.

5. The order dated 17.8.2022 was
assailed in SCC Revision under Section 25
of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act,
1887 by the landlord/respondent. The
tenant/petitioner filed his objections to the
maintainability of the revision itself on the
ground that the order did not decide the
application under Order 15 Rule 5 CPC and
was interlocutory in nature and as such, the
Revision under Section 25 was not
maintainable.
The
Revisional
Court
ignoring
the
objection
of
the
tenant/petitioner allowed the revision by
the order dated 15.10.2022 and set aside the
order dated 17.8.2022 and directed the
Trial Court to first decide the application
under Order 15 Rule 5 CPC and then,
proceed with the SCC Suit. The order dated
15.10.2022 was put to challenge before this
Court by the tenant/petitioner in a petition
under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India No. 325 of 2023. This Court after
hearing the counsels of the parties and
taking note of the fact that the objections to
the maintainability of the revision was not
considered by the Revisional Court while
allowing the revision, set aside the order
dated 15.10.2022 passed in the revision and
directed the Revisional Court to pass the
order strictly in accordance with law within
a period of three months vide order dated
7.8.2023. The Revisional Court by its order
dated 19.12.2023 has again passed the
order allowing the revision and setting
aside the order dated 17.8.2022 and
directions have been issued to the learned
Judge, Small Causes Court to decide the
application under Order 15 Rule 5 CPC
first and thereafter proceed with the SCC
Suit.

6. Shri Prakhar Tandon, learned
counsel
for
the
tenant/petitioner
has
vehemently argued that the Revisional
Court has completely misconstrued and
misinterpreted the order of this Court dated
7.8.2023 passed on the petition under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India No.
325 of 2023, which required it to decide the
objections of the tenant/petitioner regarding
the maintainability of the revision. The
impugned revisional order suffers from
patent illegality and deserves to be set
aside. The Revisional Court has proceeded
to pass orders on merit without deciding the
objections. It is contended that the revision
itself was not maintainable in law as it was
preferred against an interlocutory order by
which no rights of the parties were decided.
The revision was also decided without
granting the petitioner any opportunity to
file his response to the revision. It is also
contended that the objections of the
petitioner to the maintainability of the
revision is pending as on date and has not
been decided.

7. Per contra, Shri Shivakant Singh,
learned counsel for the respondent submits
that the order of the Revisional Court is just
and proper and does not suffer from any
766 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
illegality or infirmity. This Court had
directed the Revisional Court to pass the
order strictly in accordance with law
without
being
influenced
by
the
observations made by this Court in its order
dated 7.8.2023. The Revisional Court has
thus proceeded to decide the revision in
accordance with law.

8. I have heard learned counsels for
the parties and have perused the record.

9. Having heard the submissions of
the learned counsel for the parties and
having gone through the order dated
7.8.2023 passed by this Court in the earlier
round of litigation, I find that the
Revisional
Court
while
passing
the
impugned order dated 19.12.2023 has
misconstrued and misinterpreted the order
of this Court dated 7.8.2023 and has
completely ignored its mandate. This Court
had set aside the order dated 15.10.2022
passed in SCC Revision No. 240 of 2022
(Ram Kumar Gupta versus Piyush Shukla),
being of the view that admittedly the order
had been passed without deciding the
preliminary objection as raised regarding
the jurisdiction of the Revisional Court to
entertain the revision. The tenor of the
order of this Court was that the objections
regarding
the
maintainability
of
the
revision was required to be addressed first
before proceeding to decide the revision on
merits. This having not been done, the
order suffers from patent illegality and
irregularity.

10. Accordingly, the order dated
19.12.2023 passed by the Addl. District
Judge, Court No. 1, Kanpur Nagar in SCC
Revision No. 240 of 2022 (Raj Kumar
Gupta versus Piyush Shukla) is set aside.
The
petition
stands
allowed.
The
Revisional Court is directed to first decide
the objections of the petitioner regarding
the maintainability of the revision and then
proceed to decide the revision on merits
within a period of three months from the
date of service of certified copy of the
order of this Court.

11. Parties to bear their own costs.
----------
(2024) 4 ILRA 766
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 09.04.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA, J.

Matters U/A 227 No.2912 of 2018 (Civil)

Maqsood Ahmad ...Petitioner
Versus
Kumari Salma Bano & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Ashwani Kumar Mishra

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Narendra Kumar Chaturvedi

(A)
Civil
Law
-
Rectification
of
Typographical Errors - Code of Civil
Procedure,
1908
-
Section
152
-
Amendments of judgements, Decrees or
Orders - Clerical or arithmetical mistakes
in judgments, decrees or orders or errors
arising therein from any accidental slip or
omission may at any time be corrected by
the Court either of its own motion or on
the application of any of the parties - In
case of any type of bonafide error
including typographical error in the order,
same can be rectified at any stage under
the provisions of Section 152 of CPC

(Para 10 -13)

Petitioner challenged an order rectifying a
typographical error in earlier order - application
97(c), initially allowed with costs - was later
rectified to reflect rejection due to typographical