V.K. Sharma vs Mrs. Enid Paul

S.P. Mehrotra, J.—The present Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner, interalia, praying for quashing the order dated 14.12.2003 (Annexure-VI to the Writ Petition) passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Court No. 14, Kanpur Nagar on an Application dated 31.10.2003 (Paper No. 34 GA) filed in S.C.C. Suit No. 32 of 2002.

The dispute relates to an accommodation on the ground floor in premises No. 10/457-D (Flat No. 4), Civil Lines, Kanpur Nagar. The said accommodation has hereinafter been referred to as "the disputed accommodation".

From a perusal of the averments made in the Writ Petition and the Annexures thereto, it appears that the respondent filed a Suit against the petitioner for ejectment, arrears of rent, damages, etc. in respect of the disputed accommodation, interalia, on the ground of material alteration. The said Suit was registered as S.C.C. Suit No. 32 of 2002. Copy of the plaint of the said Suit has been filed as Annexure-l to the Writ Petition.

It further appears that the petitioner contested the said Suit and filed Written Statement, copy whereof has been filed as Annexure-II to the Writ Petition.

It further appears that during the pendency of the said Suit, an application dated 31.10.2003 (Paper No. 34 Ga) was filed on behalf of, the petitioner, interalia, praying for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner for making local inspection, and for submitting his report in regard to the points mentioned in the said application. Copy of the said application dated 31.10.2003 (Paper No. 34 Ga) has been filed as Annexure-V to the Writ Petition.

By the order dated 14.12.2003, the learned Additional District Judge, Court No. 14, Kanpur Nagar rejected the said application dated 31.10.2003 (Paper No. 34 Ga) filed on behalf of the petitioner.

Thereafter, the petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition seeking the reliefs mentioned above.

I have heard Shri A.M. Sinha learned Counsel for the petitioner, and perused the record.

From the above narration of the facts, it is evident that the impugned order dated 14.12.2003 has been passed on the aforesaid application dated 31.10.2003 (Paper No. 34 Ga) filed on behalf of the petitioner, interalia, praying for appointment of Advocate Commissioner for local inspection, and the said order is evidently an interlocutory order. It will be open to the petitioner to challenge the said order, in case, the final decision in the said S.C.C. Suit No. 32 of 2002 goes against the petitioner, and the petitioner challenges the said final decision by filing Revision u/s 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act.

In the circumstances, without going into the merits of the impugned order dated 14.12.2003, I am of the opinion that no interference is called for with the said order at this stage.

In view of the aforesaid discussion, the Writ Petition is dismissed subject to the observations made above.