KAMLA DEVI KUSHWAHA Vs. MANORAMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner learned counsel for respondents No. 1 and 2 and also perused the impugned judgment and order dated 11-11-1993 passed by learned District Judge, Jhansi whereby he remanded the case to the Judge, Small Cause for decision again as he allegedly had no alternative except to remand the same in view of the decision given by this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 32568 of 1993 Smt. Kamla Devi Kushwaha v. Smt. Manorama on 24-9-1993.

(2.) The proceedings had arisen out of suit for recovery of rent and ejectment of the tenant from the accommodation in question. The aforesaid suit was dismissed on merits by the learned Judge, Small Cause. The landlord feeling aggrieved, filed a revision application under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act before the learned District Judge, who after hearing the same, set aside the judgment of the trial court and decreed the suit with costs. The aforesaid writ petition was, thereafter, preferred by the tenant. The High Court, after hearing the same, found that the court below i.e. learned District Judge, Jhansi had exceeded its limits under which he could and should have decided the revision application. The following observations may be reproduced from the aforesaid judgment of the High Court.

(3.) After going through the impugned judgment/ order of the learned District Judge, Jhansi, it becomes evident that he had passed the aforesaid remand order without applying his mind. It also appears that in spite of the revision application filed under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act and the directions given by this Court to him, he avoided looking into the record again and by means of a wholly unreasonable order remanded the case to the trial court. This court had not given any direction to the trial court as the judgment of the trial court had not been impugned here. The impugned judgment regarding which observations were made by this Court was that of the learned District Judge, Jhansi. For the petitioner, it has been contended that this case be remanded to some officer other than the learned District Judge so that it may not again result in sketchy decision like the impugned one contained in Annexure No. 4 of the writ petition. I, however, feel that the remand of this case to some officer other than the learned District Judge, will not be proper. This Court had given the directions to the learned District Judge and he should have followed the same. He had no business to illegally remand the case to the trial Court, I, therefore, propose to remand it to the court of learned District Judge, Jhansi with the following directions.