RAM KHILAWAN Vs. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two writ petitions relate to the similar matter regarding similar premises, the owner is common and have been filed by two tenants, hence, I proceed on to decide these writ petitions together.

(2.) Briefly stated, the relevant facts for the purposes of deciding these writ petitions are that the petitioners are the tenants of part of premises, of which respondent no.3 is trustee and remaining respondent nos. 4 to 7 are trustees. The respondent nos. 2 to 7 filed S.C.C. Suit for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent and damages of use and occupation and ejectment. During the pendency of the suit, the proceedings were adjourned on the application of the petitioner, subject to payment of costs on different dates. The petitioners were defendants before the learned Trial Court, did not pay the cost and continue to participate in the proceedings. When the costs of so many dates was accumulated, the plaintiffs who are respondents before this Court, moved applications before the learned Trial Court for striking of the defence, against with the petitioners filed objections. The learned Trial Court heard both the parties and reached to the conclusion that the petitioners have willfully voided to comply with the orders of the Court and did not pay the costs. It was also argued before the learned Trial Court by the defendants, who are petitioners before this Court that they have paid the costs and the plaintiffs, who are respondents before this Court are suppressing the factum of payment of costs. After perusal of the file the learned Trial Court found that the pleas taken by the petitioners are wrong and cost has not been paid. At this juncture, it may be mentioned, that the prevailing practice in the subordinate courts is that whenever a cost is paid, the signatures or receiving is obtained on the margin of the order sheets. It was also pleaded before the learned Trial Court by the petitioners that they are ready to pay the costs, subject to condition that the excess amount which has been paid by them may be refunded. The learned Trial Court found that neither the cost has been paid, nor the excess amount has been paid. The petitioners were required to deposit cost through tender which has not been done by them and, the cost, if any, has been paid at a belated stage, which cannot be taken into account, nor the time to deposit can be enlarged under Section 148 of Code of Civil Procedure.

(3.) Both the petitioners filed revision before the leaned District Judge under Section 25 of Provincial Small Cause Court Act. The said revisions were numbered as S.C.C. Revision No.31 of 2011 and S.C.C. Revision No.16 of 2011, which were decided by the learned Additional District Judge, Court No.1 and Additional District Judge, Court No.13, Lucknow. Both the revisional courts have dismissed the revisions and confirmed the order passed by the learned Trial Court. Hence, the petitioners have preferred these writ petitioners.