Kumar Medical Stores and Ors. vs Santosh Kumar Shukla & Ors.

S.P. Mehrotra, J.—The present writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, praying for quashing the order dated 23.12.2003 (Annexure7 to the writ petition) passed by the learned Additional District Judge (Court No. 10), Kanpur Nagar on application No. 20C and another order dated 23.12.2003 passed by the learned Additional District Judge (Court No. 10), Kanpur Nagar on application No. 21C. It may be mentioned that the said applications were filed on behalf of the petitioners in SCC Revision No. 20 of 2003.

The dispute relates to a shop, the details whereof are given in the judgment and order dated 29.3.2003 passed by the Second Additional Judge, Small Cause Court, Kanpur Nagar, referred to hereinafter. The said shop has hereinafter been referred to as �the disputed shop�.

From a perusal of the averments made in the writ petition and the annexures thereto, it appears that the respondents filed a suit against the petitioners for eviction, arrears of rent etc. in respect of the disputed shop. The said suit was numbered as SCC Suit No. 31 of 1988.

By the judgment and order dated 29.3.2003 passed by the Second Additional Judge, Small Cause Court, Kanpur Nagar, the said SCC Suit No. 31 of 1988 was decreed.

Thereupon, the petitioners filed a Revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887, which was registered as SCC Revision No.20 of 2003.

During the pendency of the said SCC Revision No. 20 of 2003, an application dated 7.8.2003 (Paper No.20 C) was filed on behalf of the petitioners, inter alia, praying for being permitted to amend the written statement filed on their behalf in the said Revision. Copy of the said application has been filed as Annexure2 to the writ petition.

Another application dated 7.8.2003 (Paper No. 2 1C) was also filed on behalf of the petitioners, inter alia, praying for bringing on record additional evidence in the said Revision. The said application was supported by an affidavit of Devendra Kumar sworn on 7.8.2003. Copies of the said application and its accompanying affidavit have been filed and collectively numbered as Annexure3 to the writ petition.

The respondents filed objections dated October 15, 2003 (Annexure4 to the writ petition) against the said amendment application filed on behalf of the petitioners in the said SCC Revision No. 20 of 2003.

The respondents further filed objections against the said application filed on behalf of the petitioners for bringing on record the additional evidence in the said Revision. The said objections were accompanied by a counter affidavit of Santosh Kumar Shukla sworn on 15.10.2003. Copies of the said objections and counter affidavit have been filed and collectively numbered as Annexure5 to the writ petition.

A rejoinder affidavit sworn on 16.10.2003 was filed on behalf of the petitioners in reply to the said counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents. Copy of the said rejoinder affidavit has been filed as Annexure6 to the writ petition.

By the impugned order dated 23.12.2003 (Annexure7 to the writ petition), the said application dated 7.8.2003 (Paper No. 20C), filed on behalf of the petitioners seeking amendments in the written statement, was dismissed.

By another order dated 23.12.2003 (Annexure7 to the writ petition), the said application dated 7.8.2003 (Paper No. 21C), filed on behalf of the petitioners, inter alia, praying for bringing on record additional evidence, was also dismissed.

Thereafter, the petitioners have filed the present writ petition seeking the reliefs mentioned above.

I have heard Shri P.N. Khare, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Pankaj Bhatia, learned counsel for the caveator/respondents, and perused the record.

From the aforesaid narration of facts, it is evident that the impugned order dated 23.12.2003 passed on the said application dated 7.8.2003 (Paper No. 20C) as well as the impugned order dated 23.12.2003 passed on the said application dated 7.8.2003 (Paper No. 21C) have been passed on the said applications filed during the pendency of the said SCC Revision No. 20 of 2003. The said orders are evidently interlocutory orders. It will be open to the petitioners to challenge the said orders in case the final decision in the said SCC Revision No. 20 of 2003 goes against the petitioners, and the petitioners challenge such final decision before this Court.

In the circumstances, without going into the merits of the impugned orders, I am of the opinion that no interference is called for with the said orders at this stage.

In view of the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition is dismissed subject to the observations made above.