ANWARI BEGUM Vs. IIND ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE SAHARANPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SUDHIR Narain, J. This writ peti tion is directed against the order dated 22-12-1994 of the Judge, Small Causes Court rejecting the application Tiled by the petitioners to return the plaint for presen tation before the competent Court and the order of the revisional Court dated 31-7-1998, dismissing the revision against the aforesaid order.

(2.) THE facts in brief arc that Sham-shad Ahmad, Respondent No. 3, filed S. C. C. Suit No. 21 of 1986 against the petitioners for recovery of arrears of rent, ejectment and damages on the allegation that the petitioners are his tenant and they have failed to pay arrears of rent inspite of service of notice on them. THEy have com mitted default and are liable for eviction. THE petitioners filed written statement THEy raised various contentions. One of the contentions was that Shamshad Ahmad had purchased the property from Fatehyab Khan and Fatehyab Khan had purchased the property from one Zinda Khan. It was stated that Zinda Khan had filed Suit No. 22 of 1962 for partition. THE trial Court decreed the suit. THE appeal against the preliminary decree was dis missed. THE final decree has yet not been prepared and no specified share has been given to Zinda Khan. In the meantime Zinda Khan sold his rights and title to one Fatehyab and Fatehyab sold the same properly to Shamshad Ahmad. Respondent No. 3. His contention was that it involves the question of title and the plaint may be returned to be presented before the com petent Court He also filed an application to this effect. THE application has been rejected by the Judge, Small Causes Court on 22-12-1994. THE petitioners preferred revision against this order and the revision has been dismissed on 31-7-1998.

(3.) IT is settled law that the Judge, Small Causes Court can incidentally decide the question of title as well. The matter mostly depends upon the documentary evidence. The Judge, Small Causes Court can frame necessary issue in this respect and while deciding other is sues can decide this issue also. I do not find any manifest illegality in the impugned order. The writ petition is accordingly dis missed subject to the observation made above. Petition dismissed. .