ORDER
1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner learned counsel for respondents No. 1 and 2 and also perused the impugned judgment and order dated 11-11-1993 passed by learned District Judge, Jhansi whereby he remanded the case to the Judge, Small Cause for decision again as he allegedly had no alternative except to remand the same in view of the decision given by this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 32568 of 1993 Smt. Kamla Devi Kushwaha v. Smt. Manorma on 24-9-1993.
2. The proceedings had arisen out of suit for recovery of rent and ejectment of the tenant from the accommodation in question. The aforesaid suit was dismissed on merits by the learned Judge, Small Cause. The landlord feeling aggrieved, filed a revision application under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act before the learned District Judge, who after hearing the same, set aside the judgment of the trial court and decreed the suit with costs. The aforesaid writ petition was, thereafter, preferred by the tenani. The High Court, after hearing the same, found that the court below i.e. learned District Judge, Jhansi had exceeded its limits under which he could and should have decided the revision application. The following observations may be reproduced from the aforesaid judgment of the High Court.
"From the facts narrated above and the errors committed by the lower revisional Court, I am of the view that the judgment of the lower revisional court cannot be allowed to stand and is hereby quashed. The case is remanded back to the revisional Court, who had decided the revision by means of impugned order/judgment to redecided the revision in accordance with the judgments in the light of the law laid down in (1984) 1 All Rent Cas 679 : (AIR 1984 SC 1447); All Rent Cas 545; Paragraph 10 (Sic); (1988) 1 All Rent Cas 521, Paragraph 7 : (1988 All LJ 723). These case laws are mentioned to remind the court below about the legal position, about the jurisdiction of the revisional court while deciding the case under Section 25 of the Provisional Small Cause Courts Act. The revisional court shall re-hear and decide the revision afresh in the light of the observations made above within a period of two months from the date of filing of a certified true copy of the order passed by this Court."
3. After going through the impugned judgment/order of the learned District Judge, Jhansi, it becomes evident that he had passed the aforesaid remand order without applying his mind. It also appears that in spite of the revision application filed under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act and the directions given by this Court to him, he avoided looking into the record again and by means of a wholly unreasonable order remanded the case to the trial court. This court had not given any direction to the trial court as the judgment of the trial court had not been impugned here. The impugned judgment regarding which observations were made by this Court was that of the learned District Judge, Jhansi. For the petitioner, it has been contended that this case be remanded to some officer other than the learned District Judge so that it may not again result in sketchy decision like the impugned one contained in Annexure No. 4 of the writ petition. I, however, feel that the remand of this case to some officer other than the learned District Judge, will not be proper. This Court had given the directions to the learned District Judge and he should have followed the same. He had no business to illegally remand the case to the trial Court, I, therefore, propose to remand it to the court of learned District Judge, Jhansi with the following directions.
4. The writ petition is allowed, the impugned judgment and order as contained in Annexure No. 4 of the writ petition are hereby quashed and the case is remanded to the learned District Judge, Jhansi again for decision in accordance with the directions given in Writ Petition No. 32468 of 1993 Smt. Kamla Devi Kushawaha v. Smt, Manorma and others by this Court. The learned District Judge, Jhansi is directed not to transfer it from his file and decide it within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified true copy of this judgment and order before him. It is expected that the learned District Judge Jhansi, this time shall not shirk his responsibility by passing a wrong sketchy order.
5. The parties themselves are directed to bear their costs of this revision and they are further directed to cooperate with the court below in expeditions disposal of the case.
6. With the above observations and directions, the writ petition is, disposed of, finally.
7. Order accordingly.