Hardeep Singh vs Gagan Gurnani
2025 Latest Caselaw 182 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Hardeep Singh vs Gagan Gurnani on 1 April, 2025

Author: Pankaj Bhatia

Bench: Pankaj Bhatia

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:17908
 
Court No. - 6
 

 
Case :- S.C.C. REVISION No. - 5 of 2025
 

 
Revisionist :- Hardeep Singh
 
Opposite Party :- Gagan Gurnani
 
Counsel for Revisionist :- Rajesh Kumar Kashyap,Prabhat Kumar
 

 
Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.
 

1. Heard learned Counsel for the revisionist.

2. The present revision has been filed challenging an order dated 19.02.2025 whereby, an application under Order VII Rule 11-A of C.P.C. filed by the revisionist has been dismissed.

3. The contention of the Counsel for the revisionist is that a suit being Suit No.51 of 2017 was filed by the respondent-landlord seeking a decree of eviction and arrears of rent, however, in the said suit, no cause of action was disclosed, as such, the revisionist preferred an application under Order VII Rule 11-A seeking to dismiss the suit filed by the landlord. The said application has been dismissed by means of the impugned order.

4. It is further argued by the Counsel for the revisionist that the reliance based upon the judgment as referred to the impugned order has no applicability to the facts of the present case. He reiterated that in absence of any specific pleadings with regard to the cause of action, a suit was liable to be dismissed, however, the court below has erred in rejecting the application.

5. Considering the submission made at the Bar and on perusal of the plaint as is contained in Annexure-1, it is clear that the specific pleadings with regard to non-payment of rent was stated. It was also alleged that the tenant has changed the nature of the premises. Merely because of the word "cause of action" has not been used in the plaint would not entail the dismissal of the suit as sought by the revisionist. The bundle of facts clearly alleged that the rent was not paid and material alterations were made in the premises. The application has rightly been dismissed by the court below.

6. In view of above, no interference is warranted under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. The revision stands dismissed.

7. However, as the trial court has observed that the defendant wanted to delay the proceedings, it is directed that the SCC Suit No.51 of 2017 shall be decided, in accordance with law, expeditiously preferably within a period of six months as the suit is of the year 2017.

8. Let a copy of this order be sent to the District Judge, Lucknow for compliance.

9. After expiry of six months, the District Judge shall sent a report within a month indicating whether the suit is decided in compliance of this order or not?

Order Date :- 1.4.2025

akverma