VIKAS PAWAR Vs. TARA RANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri P.K. Jain, learned Counsel for the defendant-revisionist Vikas Pawar and have gone through the impugned order dated 6.11.2004 passed by the learned Judge Small Causes Court (Additional District Judge, Court No. 5), Muzaffar Nagar, passed in S.C.C. Suit No. 2 of 2003, Smt. Tara Rani and Anr. v. Vikas Pawar, whereby Application 58C moved by the revisionist for framing issues before entering into evidence was rejected.

(2.) Issue notice and staying proceedings of the SCC suit will linger the final disposal of the case pending before the Court below. It is proper and in the interest of justice that the instant revision is disposed of at the admission stage, specially when this order will not prejudice the plaintiff and in view of the submission made by the learned Counsel for the plaintiff-respondents before the Court below that they had no objection in case issues were framed in the case, as is evident from the impugned order dated 6.11.2004.

(3.) The fact of the case appears to be that SCC Suit was filed for arrears of rent and ejectment. Relationship of landlord and tenant was denied by the revisionist. Application 58C was moved by the revisionist that issues be framed and thereafter evidence be recorded. The learned Counsel for the plaintiff-respondent, as is evident from the impugned order, raised no objection, but the learned Judge Small Causes Court held that it was SCC suit and it was not necessary to frame issues before evidence was recorded as finding is to be given on the points involved in the case at the time of judgment when the evidence is over. Aggrieved there from instant revision has been preferred.