Unknown vs Pradeep
2023 Latest Caselaw 469 UK

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
                 AT NAINITAL
           THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR VERMA

                   22ND FEBRUARY, 2023

                 CIVIL REVISION NO.22 of 2023

Between:

Pradeep Joshi.                                            .....Revisionist

and

Shyam Sunder Agrawal.                                    .....Respondent


Counsel for the Revisionist       :          Mr. Saurabh Kumar
                                             Pandey, Advocate.


Hon'ble Alok Kumar Verma, J.

The proposed Revision has been filed under Section

25 of The Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 against the

order dated 23.12.2022, passed by the Judge, Small Causes

Court/ District Judge, Pithoragarh in Small Causes Court

Execution No. 1 of 2022, "Shyam Sunder Agrawal Vs. Pradeep

Joshi", whereby, the learned Executing Court rejecting the

objection of the revisionist - judgment - debtor directed to

issue warrant for possession.

2. Brief facts, which led to filing of the present revision

are as under:-

The respondent - decree holder - plaintiff

landlord had sent a quit notice dated

19.12.2017, to the revisionist - defendant. He

terminated the revisionist's tenancy and

demanded arrears of rent. In spite of receipt

of quit notice, the revisionist neither vacated

the shop-in-question nor paid the outstanding

rent. The respondent - plaintiff landlord had

filed a summary suit (S.C.C. Case No. 1 of

2018). In the said Suit, the defence of the

revisionist - defendant was struck-off under

Order 15 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure,

1908. The case of the revisionist - defendant

was that he was paying the rent to the plaintiff

from time to time, but the receipts were not

given to him by the plaintiff.

3. Learned Trial Court decided the Suit passing an

eviction decree against the revisionist - defendant in relation to

the shop-in-question and directed to pay the outstanding rent

i.e. a sum of `.78,334/- (Rupees seventy eight thousand three

hundred thirty four) and mesne profit @ 6000=00 per month

along with an interest at the rate of 6% per annum till the

possession of the shop-in-question is handed-over to the

respondent-plaintiff.

4. The respondent filed an Execution Case (Execution

Case No. 1 of 2022). In the Execution proceeding, the

revisionist - judgment - debtor filed an objection saying that

after the judgment and decree dated 10.08.2021, passed by

the learned Trial Court, he had paid the rent till the month of

November, 2022 to the decree holder, but the respondent -

decree holder did not give him any receipt. By the impugned

order dated 23.12.2022, learned Executing Court has directed

to issue warrant for possession.

5. It is well established proposition that the Executing

Court cannot go behind the decree. The object of Section 25 of

the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 is to enable the

Court to see that there has been no miscarriage of justice and

that the order was passed according to law. The present case

is not a case wherein the learned Executing Court has

considered any irrelevant factor or has ignored any relevant

factor.

6. Learned counsel for the revisionist could not show

that the Executing Court did not apply its judicial mind while

passing the impugned order. Therefore, there is no good

ground to entertain the present revision.

7. The Revision is liable to be rejected; the same is

rejected at the admission stage.

___________________ ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J.

Dt: 22.02.2023 Shubham