Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging the validity and correctness of the order dated 30.7.2010 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 10, Muzaffarnagar in SCC Revision No. 16 of 2007, Rajnish Agarwal versus Bisham Pal and another whereby objection application no. 36-Ga of the petitioner has been rejected.
The brief facts of the case are that the respondents filed SCC Suit No. 35 of 1993, Rajnish Agarwal and another versus Bhisham Pal and another for eviction of the petitioners tenants from the shop in dispute in the court below. The petitioners filed objection thereto denying the averments made therein.
The trial Court partly decreed the suit vide order dated 20.5.1998.
Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and decree dated 20.5.1998, the petitioners filed SCC Revision No. 62 of 1998 before the Revisional Court which too was dismissed. Thereafter, the petitioners filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 38550 of 1998 which was also dismissed by the High Court vide order dated 8.5.2001.
The petitioners handed over peaceful possession of the shop in dispute to the respondents landlords on 13.5.2001 on the basis of compromise and whereby the landlords are alleged to have agreed to pay Rs.50,000/- to the petitioners tenants but after delivery of possession they did not pay Rs.50,000/- to the petitioners. The respondents put the decree for execution in the Court of Judge Small Causes/Second Civil Judge (Senior Division), Muzaffarnagar, which was registered as Execution Case No. 3 of 2001, Rajnish Agarwal and others versus Bhisham Pal and another. The petitioners filed objections thereto under Section 47 read with Section 151 of C.P.C. supported by the affidavit of Kamal Kant.
The Court below allowed the objection vide order dated 27.4.2004 and the proceedings of Execution Case No.3 of 2001 were closed in the satisfaction of the decree. SCC Revision No. 16 of 2007, Rajnish Agarwal and another versus Bhisham Pal and another was filed against the order dated 27.4.2007 by the landlords Decree-holders before the Revisional Court.
Petitioner no.2 raised a preliminary objection about the maintainability of revision on the ground that both the orders were passed in two separate proceedings, hence they cannot be challenged in one revision as such the same is liable to be dismissed on this very ground alone. The Revisional Court fixed 30.4.2009 for the disposal of objections and arguments. Petitioners filed objections 26-C and prayed that the revision may be dismissed. The revisionists filed their objections thereto.
The amendment application was allowed by the Court below vide order dated 19.3.2010 on payment of cost of Rs.500/-. The petitioners filed objections 36-C and prayed that the revision may be dismissed. The respondents also filed objections 37-C against objections 36-C filed by the petitioners.
The Revisional Court vide order dated 30.7.2010 rejected the objection 36-C of the petitioners, hence this writ petition has been filed by the petitioners with the aforesaid prayer.
It appears that the Revisional Court while rejecting the objection 36-C of the petitioners fixed 20.8.2010 for hearing on application 3-C in the revision. The order impugned passed on objection 36-C is interlocutory in nature. The Court is not inclined to interfere in an interlocutory order in exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution.
The writ petition is accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs.
Dated 9.11.2010 CPP/-