GYAN PRAKASH MISHRA Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE KANPUR NAGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. This writ petition has been filed challenging the validity and correctness of the order dated 26.3.2011 by which the Revisional Court has refused to grant stay in S.C.C. Revision No. 11 of 2011, Gyan Prakash Mishra v. V.L. Verma and others. The brief facts of the case are that respondents No. 2 to 4 filed J.S.C.C. Suit No. 83 of 1988 seeking relief of eviction and realization of arrears of rent on the ground that the petitioner has failed to make the payment of rent since 1.4.1986 to 31.12.1988. In the said suit it was also prayed that decree of ejectment against the petitioner be passed and the possession may be handed over to the plaintiff-respondents No. 2 to 4. The suit was contested by the petitioner by filing written statement denying plaint allegation. The Judge, Small Causes Court, Kanpur Nagar after considering the matter decreed the suit partially vide his order dated 20.1.2011 directing that the house No. 120/192 Lajpat Nagar, Kanpur Nagar be vacated by the petitioner/defendant within a period of one month and the possession be handed over to the plaintiffs/respondent Nos. 2 to 4. It was also directed that the defendant/respondent Nos. 2 to 4 will be entitled to withdraw the amount of rent. In case of default the defendant will be entitled for Rs. 128/- per month as rent from the petitioner. Respondents No. 2 to 4 filed caveat application under section 148A, C.P.C. before the Court of District Judge, Kanpur Nagar.

(2.) The petitioner also preferred S.C.C. revision No. 11 of 2011 along with a stay application dated 10.3.2011 in revision before the District Judge, Kanpur Nagar, with the prayer to stay the operation of judgment and order dated 20.1.2011 till disposal of the revision. In the meantime execution proceedings were initiated by respondents No. 2 to 4 before the Court of Judge, Small Causes. The execution case was registered as Execution Case No. 18 of 2011, V.L. Verma v. Cyan Prakash. The Revisional Court though admitted the revision, but rejected the application of the petitioner for stay dated 25.3.2011 vide its order dated 26.3.2011 on the ground that JSCC suit has been decided on merits and no case for interim order has been made out by the revisionist at the admission stage, hence notices be sent to respondent Nos. 2 to 4 on the stay application. The order dated 26.3.2011 reads thus:

(3.) The petitioner is challenging the validity of genuineness of the order dated 26.3.2011 on the ground that since the respondents were already represented by their Counsel namely, Sri Vishwa Prakash Katiyar, by means of caveat application, and as such the application dated 25.3.2011 filed by the petitioner should be decided on merits. More so ever when the revision has already been admitted by the Revisional Court vide its order dated 15.2.2011. It is stated that when the Revisional Court has refused to grant the interim order against the judgment and decree dated 20.1.2011, the serious civil consequences took place to the effect that the respondent No. 3 hastily filed an affidavit before the Judge, Small Causes Court, Kanpur Nagar in Execution Case No. 18 of 2011 to execute the judgment and decree and that since the order dated 26.3.2011 and the caveat filed by the plaintiff/respondents No. 2 to 4 amply proves that they have been served, and as such the District Judge, Kanpur Nagar was under a legal obligation to stay the effect and operation of the judgment and decree dated 20.1.2011 during the pendency of the revision. The petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Mool Chand Yadav v. R.B. Sugar Co. Ltd., 1983 AWC 121, wherein it has been held that during pendency of appeal order, hearing, civil consequences must be suspended. More so when appeal is admitted, paragraphs 2 to 4 of the said judgment relied upon by the petitioner reads thus: