ASHOK KUMAR Vs. NARESH CHANDRA GUPTA AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has instituted SCC Suit No. 3 of 2011 against the respondents for ejectment and for recovery of arrears of rent. The suit was founded inter alia on the ground that the premises has been sublet by the second respondent to the first respondent. The suit was contested by the second respondent. However, the first respondent, who is the sub-tenant did not contest the suit. The suit was decreed by the Judge, Small Causes by judgment dated 24 Aug. 2011. Aggrieved thereby, the tenant-in-chief namely the second respondent file SCC Revision No. 19 of 2011, which is pending before the Revisional Court. In the meantime, the first respondent, who is the sub-tenant, moved the trial Court with an application under Order 9, Rule 13 CPC. Therein, he also filed an application for permission to furnish security in compliance of Sec. 17 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act, 1887. The Judge, Small Causes, rejected the application for furnishing security of the decretal amount and on the same date, dismissed the application under Order 9, Rule 13 . Aggrieved thereby, the first respondent preferred SCC Revision No. 4 of 2015. The Revisional Court has called for the records of the trial Court and has also stayed the execution of the decree dated 24 Aug. 2011 passed in SCC Suit No. 3 of 2011. Aggrieved by the said order dated 30 April 2015, the plaintiff petitioner has approached this Court by way of instant petition.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the revisional Court has transgressed its jurisdiction in making certain observations in the impugned order regarding merits of the controversy, which was decided by the Judge, Small Causes by judgment dated 24 Aug. 2011. It is urged that the controversy before the revisional Court is limited to the extent whether there was sufficient cause for non-appearance and whether compliance of Sec. 17 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act, 1887 has been made or not.

(3.) Sri R.M. Singh, who has filed his caveat on behalf of the first respondent submitted that the observations made by the revisional Court in the impugned order are only tentative in nature and for the purpose of consideration of the stay application. It is urged that the order impugned in the instant petition is purely an interlocutory order and it does not call for any interference by this Court. He further submitted that the first respondent is prepared to argue the revision on such date, as may be fixed by this Court.