ABDUL KALAM Vs. ABDUL MAJID

JUDGEMENT

(1.) learned counsel for the revisionist-applicant and Sri Haider Hussain, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff opposite parties, at length and in detail.

(2.) The plaintiff opposite parties instituted in the Court of the Judge, Small Causes, Varanasi original Suit No. 26 of 1983 against the defendant-revisionist. In the said suit the opposite parties claimed, inter alia, a decree of ejectment against the revisionist. The claim for the decree of ejectment was based on the allegation that the revisionist was the tenant in the disputed house whereof the plaintiff-opposite parties claimed to be the owner-landlords. Denying the title of the plaintiff-opposite parties and asserting himself to be the owner of the disputed house, the defendant revisionist urged the Court below to return the plaint of the suit. In support of the prayer for return of the plaint, the defendant-revisionist placed reliance on the provisions of S. 23 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887, hereinafter called the Act. By means of its judgment and order dt. 7th Sept., 1989, the Court below has declined to accede to the prayer of the defendant-revisionist for return of the plaint. Hence this revision.

(3.) The contention of Sri R. N. Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist, is that the Court below acted illegally in rejecting the prayer of the revisionist for return of the plaint in as much as, the title of the plaintiff opposite parties qua the house in dispute was denied and the Court below could not examine the question of title of the property in dispute.