RAJNI DEVI Vs. AJAY KUMAR AGRAWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revisionist has invoked the provision of Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act preferring the revision against the impugned order dated 05.02.2019, as passed by the Court of District Judge, Nainital by virtue of which an Application Paper No. 67 Ga/1-2 as filed by the revisionist in SCC Suit No. 16 of 2015, Ajay Kumar Agrawal v. Smt. Rajni Devi has been rejected. The findings, which has been recorded by the learned trial Court is that by virtue of filing of the application paper No. 67 Ga/1-2, the defendant had sought to get impounded the document paper No. 24-C/1-2, i.e. rent deed dated 30.08.2011 which was one of the rent agreements, which was under consideration in the evidences led before the court below. The argument of the learned counsel for the revisionist is that the District Judge, before whom the revision was pending, was liable to invoke Section 33(1) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and the instrument Paper No. 24-C/1-2 i.e. rent deed dated 30.08.2011 ought to be impounded.

(2.) This Court cannot be oblivious of the fact nor it could be ignored as to the circumstances under which the revisionist has filed an Application Paper No. 67 Ga/1-2 in the proceedings of eviction and recovery of arrears of rent which admittedly has reached upto the stage of hearing/final hearing after the closure of the evidence of the parties. Rather, the facts on record also reveals that it was the Suit itself was expected to be heard positively on 05.02.2019 and 06.02.2019, and thereafter, on another date which was fixed for the final disposal of the SCC Suit No. 16 of 2015, the Application Paper No. 67 Ga/1-2 was filed on 05.02.2019.

(3.) The Judge, Small Cause Courts has rejected it on the ground that it was nothing but a strategy which was being adopted by the tenant to delay the proceedings, more particularly, when the said document paper No. 24-C/1-2 i.e. rent deed dated 30.08.2011 has already undergone the test of evidences in the proceedings of the Suit where the evidence has closed and the matter has reached upto to the stage of final hearing, it goes without saying that the implications of the said documents about its acceptance to be read in evidences or not would be an issue falling within the domain of Judge, Small Causes Courts which is yet to be decided at the stage of final adjudication of the Suit itself. The invocation of the provisions contained under Section 33(1) of the Indian Stamps Act apparently seems to have been used as a weapon by the revisionist/tenant to delay the proceedings of the Suit. Because compounding of a document is an issue between the parties to the agreement executing it and the authority under the Indian Stamp Act.