Ganga Ram vs Judge, Small Causes Court and Others

S.P. Mehrotra, J

The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed, inter alia, praying for quashing the judgment and order dated 29.5.2003 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition) passed by the learned Judge, Small Cause Court, Moradabad in S.C.C. Suit No. 5 of 2001.

The dispute relates to an accommodation situated in Mohalla Budhi Mata, Kasba Chandausi, District Moradabad, the details whereof are given in the judgment and order dated 29.5.2003 referred to hereinafter. The said accommodation has hereinafter been referred to as the "disputed accommodation".

From the averments made in the writ petition and the Annexures thereto, it appears that the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 filed a suit against the petitioner for eviction, arrears of rent, and damages, etc., in respect of the disputed accommodation. The said suit was registered as S.C.C. Suit No. 5 of 2001.

It further appears that by the judgment and order dated 29.5.2003 passed by the learned Judge, Small Cause Court, Moradabad, the said S.C.C. Suit No. 5 of 2001 was decreed ex parte. Copy of the said judgment and order dated 29.5.2003, has been filed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition.

Thereafter, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking the reliefs mentioned above.

I have heard Sri J. N. Rai, learned counsel for the petitioners, and perused the record.

As is evident from the facts narrated above, the present writ petition has been filed against the judgment and order dated 29.5.2003, passed by the learned Judge, Small Cause Court, Moradabad, decreeing ex parte the said S.C.C. Suit No. 5 of 2001.

Against the said judgment and order dated 29.5.2003, the petitioner has got the following alternative remedies ;

(1) The petitioner may file an application under Order IX Rule 13 of the CPC for setting aside the said ex parte decree, while ensuring compliance of the requirements of Section 17 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act.

(2) The petitioner may file revision u/s 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act against the said judgment and order dated 29.5.2003.

In view of the aforesaid alternative remedies available to the petitioner, I am of the opinion that no interference is called for with the said judgment and order dated 29.5.2003 in the present writ petition. The writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of availability of alternative remedies to the petitioner. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed on the said ground.