JEEVAN KUMAR Vs. VIKAS AGRAWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All the three petitions arise from Small Causes Case No.13/2020 instituted by the landlord for arrears of rent and eviction of the tenant from the suit property and were, therefore, connected and have been heard together. S.C.C.Revision (Defective) No.18 of 2022 has been filed by the tenant challenging the order dtd. 29/4/2022 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No.3, Gorakhpur in Small Causes Case No.13 of 2020 whereby the Court below has rejected the application of the tenant- revisionist to dismiss the plaint instituting S.C.C.Case no.13 of 2020 under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. The revision has been reported as defective because formal order has not been filed. However, the Court has proceeded to hear the revision on merits. The application under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C was filed by the tenant-defendants stating that he had deposited the requisite rents through internet banking and therefore, no cause of action vested in the plaintiff-landlords for instituting the suit for arrears of rent and eviction from the suit property. The plea of the revisionists related to a question of fact and is outside the purview of Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. A perusal of the plaint indicates that the cause of action has been stated in S.C.C.Suit No.13 of 2020. The trial court has rightly rejected the application of the revisionists under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. There is no material irregularity or any other illegality in the order dtd. 29/4/2022. The revision is dismissed.

(2.) S.C.C.Revision (Defective) No.19 of 2022 has been filed by the tenant challenging the order dtd. 29/4/2022 whereby the opportunity of the revisionist-tenant to file written statement has been closed.

(3.) The revision has also been reported as defective because formal order has not been filed. However, the Court has proceeded to hear the revision on merits. A perusal of the order dtd. 29/4/2022 shows that the trial court has taken a very technical view regarding opportunity to the revisionist-tenant to file his written statement and interpretation of Order 8 Rule 10 C.P.C. The proviso to Order 8 Rule 10 are procedural provisions and are not to be used to penalise a defaulting litigant. In view of the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in