Court No. - 5
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 5134 of 2019 Petitioner :- Late Mohammad Yunus Qureshi And 8 Others Respondent :- Mohammad Yunus Qureshi Counsel for Petitioner :- Anoop Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- Ashish Kumar Singh
Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J.
This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the defendant-tenant/ petitioners praying to set aside the judgment dated 31.10.2013 in SCC Revision No.20 of 2005 (Mohd. Yunus Qureshi S/o Mohd. Kale Khan vs. Mohd. Yunus Qureshi S/o Noor Ilahi Qureshi) passed by the Judge Small Cause Court, Ghaziabad and the judgment dated 20.09.2018 in SCC Revision No.11 of 2014 (Mohd. Yunus Qureshi S/o Noor Ilahi Qureshi vs. Mohd. Yunus Qureshi S/o Mohd. Kale Khan) passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.2, Ghaziabad.
The impugned judgment dated 20.09.2018 was passed in the circumstances that the counsel for the defendant-tenant/ petitioners has not appeared to argue the case. After the judgment was passed by the revisional court as aforesaid, the defendant-tenant/ petitioners filed a restoration application dated 20.10.2018 which is pending before the court of IInd Additional District Judge, Ghaziabad. In the meantime, the original tenant Mohd. Yunus Qureshi S/o Noor Ilahi died on 14.12.2018. Therefore, his successors, namely the petitioner Nos.2 to 9 have filed the present petition.
Learned counsel for the defendant-tenant/ petitioners submits that on the date fixed for argument, i.e. 20.09.2018, the defendant-tenant/ petitioner No.1 fell ill and as such he could not come to the court while his counsel could not appear due to cataract operation of his wife. He submits that an opportunity may be afforded by the revisional court and thereafter, the revisional court may decide the revision within a time bound period. He further submits that the defendant-tenant/ petitioners are ready to pay costs also.
Learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent does not seriously oppose the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the the defendant-tenant/ petitioners and submits that a minimum of Rs.11,000/- as cost should be awarded.
Considering the submissions of learned counsels for the parties as afore-noted, the impugned judgment dated 20.09.2018 passed in SCC Revision No.11 of 2014 (Mohd. Yunus Qureshi S/o Noor Ilahi Qureshi vs. Mohd. Yunus Qureshi S/o Mohd. Kale Khan), is set aside subject to payment of cost of Rs.11,000/- which the defendant-tenant/ petitioners shall deposit with the court below within two weeks and on deposit, the plaintiff- respondent shall be entitled to withdraw the cost. The revision is restored to its original number.
The defendant-tenant/ petitioners shall file a certified copy of this order within two weeks before the court below and, thereupon, the court below shall fix a date for hearing of the revision. The court shall decide the aforesaid SCC Revision in accordance with law, expeditiously preferably within three months, without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties. It is made clear that this court has not expressed any opinion on merits of the case of the parties.
It is further clarified that in the event the cost as aforesaid is not deposited by the defendant-tenant/ petitioners within the stipulated period or a certified copy of this order is not filed before the revisional court within the stipulated period, then the impugned judgment of the revisional court dated 20.09.2018 in SCC Revision No.11 of 2014 shall stand automatically restored and the plaintiff-respondent shall be entitled to proceed further to get possession of the disputed accommodation from the defendant-tenant/ petitioners and for recovery of the decreed amount.
The petition stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 25.7.2019 NLY