Heard Sri Sharad Malviya, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Madnesh Prasad Singh, learned counsel for the respondents.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that a S.C.C. Suit No. 98 of 1988 was filed for arrears of rent and ejectment which was decided on 16.10.1991. Against the said order, respondent-plaintiff filed SCC Revision No. 175 of 1991 which was allowed vide order dated 06.07.1999. Petitioners-respondents have challenged the same by filing Writ Petition No. 33677 of 1999 which was allowed vide order dated 18.08.1999 and the matter was remanded back to the Revisional Court to decide afresh within two months with certain directions. Thereafter, Revisional Court has remanded back the matter to the SCC Court to decide the suit afresh and SCC Court has again dismissed the suit vide order dated 04.12.1999. Against the order dated 04.12.1999, SCC Revision No. 1 of 2000 was filed in which Revisional Court, vide order dated 04.03.2003 framed two new issues and remitted back the matter to the SCC Court to decide the same and return its finding upon newly framed issues within one month and send back to the Revisional Court to decide Revision. The same was decided by the SCC Court vide order dated 24.08.2006 and file was sent back to Revisional Court for final decision. SCC Revision No. 1 of 2000 is pending and 16.08.2019 was fixed for argument but on that date plaintiff-respondent has filed application dated 16.08.2019 stating therein that Revisional Court has no jurisdiction to frame new issues, which was rejected by the Revisional Court vide order dated 7.9.2019. It is next submitted that impugned order dated 7.9.2019 is bad in law as Revisional Court has no jurisdiction to frame new issues, therefore, the same is liable to be set aside.
Sri Madnesh Prasad Singh, learned counsel for the respondents has vehemently opposed the contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that Revisional Court has passed order dated 04.03.2003 framing two new issues in presence of counsel for both the parties which was never challenged and petitioner-defendant has also contested the SSC suit on newly framed two issues without raising any objection, therefore, at this belated stage any such application challenging the jurisdiction of Revisional Court to frame issues after 16 years cannot be accepted.
Being confronted by the Court, learned counsel for the petitioners fairly conceded that the issues were framed in the year 2003 and that was never challenged.
I have considered the rival submissions made by counsel for the parties and perused the record.
There is no dispute on this point that order of Revisional Court was passed on 4.3.2003 in the presence of counsel for both the parties, which was never challenged and SCC suit was also contested on newly framed two new issues, therefore, at a very belated stage i.e. 16 years, petitioners cannot be permitted to challenge the jurisdiction of Revisional Court to frame issues.
Petition lacks merit and is, accordingly dismissed.
At this stage, counsel for the parties submitted that this revision is pending since year 2000, therefore, a direction may be issued to the Revisional Court to decide the same at the earliest.
Considering the same, Revisional Court is directed to decide the same maximum within three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.
Order Date :- 29.11.2019 Sartaj