RADHA DEVI Vs. TUNTUN PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner prays for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 21.12.1998 whereby application filed by her to return the plaint for presentation before a Court of competent jurisdiction, was rejected by the Judge, Small Causes Court and the order dated 5.8.2000 whereby the revision filed by the petitioner against the aforesaid judgment was dismissed by the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ghazipur. The facts of the case giving rise to the present petition, in brief, are that the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed suit for ejectment of the petitioner from the building in question and for recovery of rent and damages on the basis of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The petitioner filed her written statement in the said suit but thereafter did not co -operate with the proceedings in the suit. Consequently, the suit was directed to be proceeded ex -parte and was ultimately decreed. Challenging the validity of the said decree, Revision No. 57 of 1982 was filed by the petitioner. The said revision was allowed by the revisional court and case was remanded to the trial court for decision afresh by judgment and order dated 13.10.1983. Validity of the order of remand passed by the revisional court was challenged before this Court in writ petition No. 14293 of 1983 but the said petition was dismissed on 8.9.1998. When the proceedings, on remand, were reinitiated before the trial court, petitioner filed an application which was numbered as 130 -Ka contending that in the suit serious question of title was involved, therefore, plaint of the suit was liable to be returned for presentation before a court of competent jurisdiction. The application filed by the petitioner was objected to and opposed by the contesting respondents No. 1 and 2 contending that the suit was filed by them on the basis of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and the question of title, raised by the petitioner, if at all, was incidental which could be decided by the trial court itself, therefore, there was no question of returning the plaint. The trial court, after hearing the parties, upheld the objection raised by the plaintiffs -respondents and dismissed application by its judgment and order dated 21.12.1998. The revision filed by the petitioner against the said order also failed and was dismissed by judgment and order dated 5.8.2000. Hence, the present petition.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner vehemently urged that in the case serious question of title was involved, which could not be decided by the Judge, Small Causes Court. The plaint of the suit was, therefore, liable to be returned to the plaintiffs for presentation before a competent court.

(3.) FROM the plaint, copy of which has been filed as Annexure -1 to the writ petition, it is evident that the suit was filed against the petitioner for ejectment and recovery of rent on the basis of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The petitioner attempted to raise question of title in her written statement, with a view to ousting the jurisdiction of the trial court to try and decide the suit. It may be noted that the suit was filed in the year 1981. The same was initially decreed and the matter has come up to this Court but petitioner never filed any application for returning the plaint on the ground that serious question of title was involved in this case. Even assuming without admitting that the question of title was involved in the case incidentally, it is the consistent view of this Court that such question could be decided by the Judge, Small Causes Court. It is also well settled in law that the findings recorded in a case by the Judge Small Causes Court have got no binding effect if the dispute is taken to the regular side before a civil court, upon the parties or the courts. As stated above, the suit has been filed on the basis of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, if plaintiffs -respondents failed to prove the said relationship between the parties, their suit will fail. The courts below, therefore, rightly rejected the application and the revision filed by the petitioner. To me, it appears that the application No. 130 -Ka which has been rejected by the courts below, was not a bona fide application but was filed with a view to lingering on the proceeding in the suit and delay the disposal of the same. The suit is pending in the court since 1981 and is still at its initial stage. It is, therefore, observed that the suit shall be decided expeditiously preferably within a period of two months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before the trial court. It is further provided that the parties shall not seek adjournment and will co -operate with the proceedings of the suit before the trial court. With these observations and directions, the present petition fails and is dismissed in limine.