MOHD. SALIM @ KALLU Vs. DR. LIYAKAT HUSAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Manish Kumar Nigam, learned counsel appearing in support of this writ petition and Sri A.P. Pandey who has appeared for the respondent.

(2.) The Court finds on the record an application seeking formal amendment in terms of which the petitioner additionally seeks to challenge the orders dated 6 January 2014 and 5 April 2003, passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division) in the suit in question. The application further seeks to amend the writ petition itself to be treated as being one under Article 227 of the Constitution. Since the amendments sought are formal in nature, they are allowed. Let the amendments be carried out forthwith.

(3.) This petition arises out of proceedings initiated by the respondent under the Provincial Small Causes Court Act, 1887. SCC Suit No. 4 of 2002 came to be instituted by the respondent-landlord on 17 February 2002 alleging that the petitioner had fallen in arrears of rent and was liable to be evicted. The suit itself is stated to have been registered on 7 February 2002 and thereafter summons are said to have been issued to the petitioner. The petitioner is stated to have entered appearance on 29 August 2002 and also filed his written statement on the said date. The Court thereafter fixed 9 October 2002 for framing of issues. On the date fixed, the matter could not be taken up due to paucity of time and accordingly stood adjourned to 2 November 2002. On the said date the contesting parties appear to have filed certain applications on account of which the Court fixed 22 November 2002 as the next date of hearing. On 5 April 2003 ultimately the Court passed the impugned order holding that the petitioner had failed to deposit the amount of rent as mandated in law and consequently his defence was liable to be struck of. To complete the narration of facts, the Court also notices that on 2 November 2002, the petitioner had filed an application seeking permission of the Court to deposit rent at the rate of Rs. 250/- per month with effect from January 2001. It was this application which was taken up for consideration by the trial court and dismissed on 5 April 2003. The petitioner thereafter appears to have moved an application for recall of the order which was dismissed on 6 January 2014. A revision taken against the aforesaid order also met a similar fate when the District Judge dismissed the same on 25 August 2015. It is at this stage that the instant writ petition came to be preferred and a learned Single Judge while initially entertaining the writ petition passed an interim order providing that while proceedings may go on, final judgment shall not be delivered. This order was thereafter extended again on 19 November 2014. According to Sri Pandey, although the proceedings were thereafter taken and concluded, the Court below has not rendered final judgment in light of the interim order passed by this Court on this petition.