JUDGMENT S.P. Mehrotra, J.
1. This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner, inter-alia, praying for quashing the order dated 11.2.2003 (Annexure 9 to the Writ Petition) and the order dated 18.2.2003 (Annexure 10 to the Writ Petition) passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Court No. 7, Muzaffarnagar (Revisional Court).
2. The disputed relates to a shop situated in Nagar Mahapalika Ward No. 17, C.B. Gupta Colony, Kasba Shamli, District Muzaffarngar. The said shop has, hereinafter, been referred to as "the disputed shop".
3. From the perusal of the averment made in the Writ Petition, it appears that the respondent filed a Suit against the petitioner for ejectment, arrears of rent, damages etc. in respect of the disputed shop. The said Suit was registered as S.C.C. Suit No. 71 of 1991. Copy of the plaint of the said Suit has been filed as Annexure 1 to the Writ Petition.
4. It further appears that by the judgment and order dated 12.10.1998, the said Suit was decreed.
5. Thereupon, the petitioner filed a Revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, which was registered as S.C.C. Revision No. 94 of 1998.
6. It further appears that during the pendency of the said Revision, an application dated 5.2.2003 (Paper No. 36-Ga) was filed on behalf of the petitioner, inter-alia, praying for summoning the original register mentioned in the said application from Nagar Palika, Shamli. Copy of the said application dated 5.2.2003 has been filed as Annexure 5 to the Writ Petition.
7. It further appears that by the order dated 5.2.2003, the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 7, Muzaffarnagar fixed 11.2003 for objections and disposal. Copy of the order dated 5.2.2003 has been filed, as Annexure 6 to the Writ Petition.
8. It further appears that on 11.2.2003, objections were filed on behalf of the respondent against the said application. Copy of the objections dated 11.2.2003 has been filed as Annexure 5-A to the Writ Petition.
9. It further appears that on 11.2.2003, an application for adjournment (Paper No. 37 Ga) was filed on behalf of the petitioner. Thereupon, by the order dated 11.2.2003, the date was fixed as 18.2.2003 for arguments subject to the imposition of cost of Rs. 1000/-. It was further observed in the said order dated 11.2.2003 that in case, the case was argued on 18.2.2003, the condition regarding imposition of cost of Rs. 1000/- would become inoperative. Copy of the said order dated 11.2.2003 has been filed as Annexure 9 to the Writ Petition.
10. On 18.2.2003, when the Revision was taken up before the learned Additional District Judge, Court No. 7, Muzaffarnagar, it was pointed out on behalf of the petitioner that the application dated 5.2.2003, which had been fixed for disposal on 11.2.2003, was yet to be disposal of, and, therefore, the said application be disposed of before proceeding to hear the arguments on the Revision.
11. Thereupon, the learned Additional District Judge, Court No. .7, Muzaffarnagar passed the order dated 18.2.2003, copy whereof has been filed as Annexure 10 to the Writ Petition. It was, inter-alia, observed in the said order dated 18.2.2003 that it would be proper to decide the said application dated 5.2.2003 (Paper No. 36-Ga), after the arguments were concluded; and that if, on the conclusion of the arguments, it was found that the impugned judgment of the learned Judge, Small Cause Court was perverse, then only it would be proper to consider the said application (Paper No. 36-Ga) for summoning the document.
12. Keeping in view the oral prayer made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner before the Revisional Court for adjournment so as to enable the petitioner to challenge the said order dated 18.2.2003 before the High Court, it was observed in the said order dated 18.2.2003 that the petitioner should either produce the stay order from the High Court or argue the case on 7.2.2003. It was further observed that in case, the petitioner did not produce any stay order from the High Court, nor argued the case on 7.3.2003, then the petitioner would be required to pay the cost of Rs. 1000/- mentioned in the said order dated 11.2.2003.
13. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition seeking the reliefs mentioned above.
14. I have heard Sri. P.K. Jain, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Nalin Kumar Sharma, learned Counsel for the caveator-respondent.
15. Sri Jain, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that on 11.2.2003, there was strike by the lawyers, and various other cases were adjourned by the Revisional Court on the said ground. However, in the said S.C.C. Revision No. 94 of 1998 filed by the petitioner, the Revisional Court adjourned the case subject to the imposition of cost of Rs. 1000/-. It is submitted by Sri Jain that the Revisional Court acted illegally in imposing the cost of Rs. 1000/-.
16. It is further submitted by Sri Jain that the order dated 18.2.2003 postponing the disposal of the application (Paper No. 36-Ga) filed on behalf of the petitioner till the conclusion of the arguments, was illegal.
17. Having considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that no interference is called for at this stage with the orders impugned in the Writ Petition. The imposition of cost of Rs. 1000/- by the order dated 11.2.2003, as is evident from the perusal of the order dated 18.2.2003, independent on the Revision being argued on behalf of the petitioner on 7.3.2003. Further, the order dated 18.2.2003 has categorically observed that the Application (Paper No. 36-Ga) would be considered after the conclusion of the arguments in the Revision. The present Writ Petition filed by the petitioner is, thus, evidently premature.
18. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of the same being premature. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed.