RAM NARAIN GUPTA DEAD Vs. HARI OM AGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The application filed by the petitioner-defendant of SCC Suit No. 169 of 2008 for stay of the proceedings of the suit under section 10 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the 'C.P.C.') was rejected by the Judge, Court of Small Causes by the order dated 4th August, 2010. This order was assailed by the petitioner under section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act, 1887 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') by filing a revision which was dismissed by the judgment and order dated 21st November, 2011. These two orders have been assailed in this petition. Original Suit No. 197 of 2008 was filed on 28th February, 2008 by Hari Om Agarwal and Savitri Agarwal (respondents-in this petition) against Ram Narain Gupta (since deceased) for permanent injunction with respect to the plot situate in the eastern part of the property described at the foot of the plaint i.e., House No. 107/263, Nehru Nagar, Kanpur and for restraining the defendant from obstructing the light and air facilities of the plaintiffs. A written statement was filed by the defendant that the plaintiffs were not the owners or landlord of the strip of the land and it was claimed that the said land was owned and possessed by the defendant. The said original suit is pending.

(2.) Subsequently, Hari Om Agarwal and Savitri Agarwal filed SCC Suit No. 169 of 2008 on 2nd July, 2008 for eviction of Ram Narain Gupta from the portion in his tenancy (since deceased) as he was in arrears of rent and had raised constructions without the consent of the landlords and had not vacated the premises despite termination of tenancy. A written statement has been filed by the defendant. The defendant Ram Narain Gupta (since deceased) also filed an application under section 10 read with section 151, C.P.C. for stay of the proceedings in the subsequent S.C.C. Suit. A reply was filed by the plaintiffs.

(3.) The Judge, Court of Small Causes after noticing that the parties in both the suits were same observed that S.C.C. Suit No. 169 of 2008 had been filed for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent whereas Original Suit No, 197 of 2008 had been filed for restraining the respondents from raising constructions on the open plot of land and the relief in the S.C.C. Suit could only be granted by the Judge, Court of Small Causes and not by the Civil Court whereas the relief in Original Suit No. 197 of 2008 could be granted only by the Civil Judge and not by the Judge, Court of Small Causes. The application filed by the defendant was, accordingly, rejected. The revision filed by the defendant was also dismissed by the judgment and order dated 4th August, 2010.