Court No. - 30
Case :- CIVIL REVISION No. - 106 of 2012 Revisionist :- M/S Shri Ram Mahadev Prasad And Another Opposite Party :- Sri Gopal Agarwal Counsel for Revisionist :- A.K. Gupta,A. Kumar Singh,Arun Kumar Shukla,Pramod Kumar Jain,Pratibha Singh,Rahul Chaudhary Counsel for Opposite Party :- Deepak Kumar Jaiswal
Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,J.
Heard Sri P.K. Jain, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Rahul Chaudhary, learned counsel appearing for the revisionist and Sri Deepak Kumar Jaiswal, learned counsel appearing for the sole defendant respondent.
Present revision has been filed against the judgment and order dated 14.2.2012 passed by the Judge, Small Causes Court/Additional District Judge, Court No. 7, Kanpur Nagar dismissing S.C.C. Suit No. 32 of 2018.
The impugned judgment has been passed on the ground that the plaintiff failed to prove service of notice on the defendant - tenant and as such the tenancy has not been validly terminated by notice.
Submission of learned counsel for the revisionist is that the notice through speed post was sent on the address of the godown under tenancy which was returned with the endorsement 'Left'. In support of his argument, learned counsel for the revisionist has placed reliance on judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of (i) M/s Madan and Co. Vs. Wazir Jaivir Chand 1989 (1) SCC 264, (ii) Karnataka Public Service Commission Vs. P.S. Ram Krishna 1996 (2) SCC 519 and (iii) State of M.P. Vs. Hiralal and others 1996 (7) SCC 523 and the judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Smt. Santosh Kumari Vs. 4th Additional District Judge, Bareilly and others 2013 3 AWC 2877. Submission is that under such circumstances, the notice is deemed to be sufficient.
Learned counsel appearing for the respondent though tried to support the impugned judgment, however, he could not dispute the aforesaid legal position.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned judgment and order dated 14.2.2012 passed by the Judge, Small Causes Court/Additional District Judge, Court No. 7, Kanpur Nagar is hereby set aside. The matter is remanded back to the trial court for decision afresh on merits.
It is made clear that now the service on the defendant - respondent is deemed to be sufficient, the trial court shall proceed with the case to be decided on merits by applying his own mind on the merits of the case afresh.
At this stage, learned counsel for the revisionist submits that since the suit is pending since 2008, the same may be directed to be decided within a time bound period.
In such view of the matter, it is directed that the trial court shall make all endeavor to decide the suit, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before him.
No costs.
Order Date :- 29.1.2019 p.s.