CLR/38/2025 on 9 June, 2025

Uttarakhand High Court

CLR/38/2025 on 9 June, 2025

Author: Alok Kumar Verma

Bench: Alok Kumar Verma

                      Office Notes,
                   reports, orders or
SL.                 proceedings or
         Date                                            COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No                   directions and
                   Registrar's order
                    with Signatures
      09.06.2025                        CLR No. 38 of 2025
                                        Hon'ble Alok Kumar Verma, J.

The revisionists-defendants have filed
the proposed revision under Section 25 of
the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887
challenging the order dated 22.02.2025,
passed by learned Small Cause Court /
District Judge, Dehradun in SCC Suit No.33
of 2023, filed for eviction, recovery of
arrears of rent and mesne profit, whereby
the learned Judge has dismissed the
Application of the revisionists-defendants
filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908.

2. Heard Mr. Neeraj Garg, learned
counsel for the proposed revisionists and
Mr. Siddhartha Jain, learned counsel for the
respondent.

3. Mr. Neeraj Garg, learned counsel for
the proposed revisionists contended that the
proceedings of eviction of tenant has been
contemplated under Chapter-V of the
Uttarakhand Tenancy Act, 2021 (in short,
“Act, 2021”). The case of the respondent-
plaintiff is not maintainable under the
provisions of the Act, 2021. A legal
question arises for determination in view of
Sections 22, 40 and Section 47 of the Act,
2021 vis-à-vis Schedule (ii), Clause (iv) of
Section 15 of the Provincial Small Cause
Courts Act, 1887.

4. Mr. Siddhartha Jain, Advocate, on the
other hand, submitted that the revision
should be filed within a period of 30 days
from the date of impugned order. The
proposed revision has been filed beyond the
said period, therefore, the revision is barred
by limitation.

5. Mr. Neeraj Garg, Advocate, submitted
that the limitation for filing a revision to the
High Court against any order of the Small
Cause Court would be governed by Article
131 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which
provides a period of 90 days.

6. Mr. Neeraj Garg, Advocate, has relied
upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court, passed in “Udai Bhan Gupta Vs.
Hari Shankar Bansal and Others“, 1984
(Supp) SCC 602.

7. Mr. Siddhartha Jain, Advocate, has
relied upon a judgment of Hon’ble High
Court of Allahabad, passed in “Ravindra
Kumar Agrawal and Another Vs. Sachin
Agrawal“, 2018 SCC OnLine All 6274.

8. The contentions raised by the learned
counsel for the parties are fairly arguable.
Therefore, it would be appropriate to deal
with the question raised by the parties by
granting an opportunity to the respondent
to file objection.

9. List on 25.06.2025.

10. In the facts and circumstances of the
case, it is directed that the proceedings will
continue in the said SCC Suit, pending
before the trial court, but judgment shall
not be delivered.

2.

(Alok Kumar Verma, J.)
09.06.2025
Shiv/