RAVINDRA KUMAR BHATIA Vs. TAPAN MITTAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Against an exparte decree dated?25.04.2015 passed in SCC Suit No. 9 of 2013 'Tapan Singh Mittal Vs. Ravindra Kumar Bhatia' a belated SCC Revision under Sec. 25 of the Act was preferred by the present petitioner, who is a tenant, along with the Delay Condonation Application, which was registered as?Miscellaneous Case No. 04 of 2017 'Ravindra Kumar Bhatia Vs. Tapan Mittal'. During the pendency of the Miscellaneous Case No. 04 of 2017, whereunder Sec. 5 application in the Revision was pending consideration, respondent decree holder filed an execution of decree dated?25.04.2015 in the Executing Court registered as Execution Case No. 02 of 2017 'Tapan Mittal Vs. Ravindra Kumar Bhatia'. Initially Executing Court had passed an order of issuance of parwana dakhal on 03.07.2018, which is quoted hereinbelow: ...[VARNACULAR TEXT OMITTED]...

(2.) Case of the petitioner is that on getting knowledge of exparte decree dated 25.04.2015, the petitioner contends to have filed Order 9, Rule 13 application to set aside the exparte decree. The application of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 16.09.2017, due to non compliance of Sec. 17 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act. Its only after dismissal of Order 9, Rule 13, the petitioner has filed SCC Revision on 27.09.2017 under Sec. 25 of the Act. While all these proceedings were going on the execution filed by the respondent decree holder was proceeding further and the Court passed an order on 03.07.2018 of parwana dakhal.

(3.) When a proceeding are drawn under a Special Act and its procedure are governed under the provisions of the said Act, in particular, the provisions for providing a superior revisional or appellate forum, in that eventuality the revisional provision of a general law will not apply to the order passed under the principle special statute. In particular, when in the present case the order of parwana dakhal challenge in Revision was not kept in abeyance.