List has been revised.
The case is listed peremptorily, however, Sri Pulkit Misra, learned counsel for the respondent has sent illness slip.
Due to repeated adjournments from the side of respondent, the Court has proceeded to heard the matter and to decide the same.
Heard Sri Prashant Singh Gaur, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a lease agreement was executed between the petitioner and respondents on 30.04.2002 for a period of 15 years. It is admitted case of the petitioner that the agreement was not on the required stamp and it was not registered before the competent authority.
Certain dispute arose in regard to condition laid down in the lease agreement in regard to enhancement of rent and other monetary benefits.
Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed Small Causes Suit No.42 of 2010 for ejectment and recovery of arrears of dues. The suit was contested by the respondents and written statement was filed.
An application was moved by the respondent No.2 on 30.10.2012 with the prayer that document No.C-21/5 to 9 be impounded and be sent to the Collector, Lucknow for calculation of stamp duty and for recovery of the same from the plaintiff.
The application filed by respondent No.2 was contested and the trial Court passed an order on 07.03.2013, whereby the document No.C-21/5 to 9 was impounded staying the proceeding of the trial of the pending suit.
The petitioner filed a review petition on 05.04.2013, which was also rejected vide order dated 17.10.2013.
By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the impugned orders dated 07.03.2013 and 17.10.2013.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that under Order 13 Rule 8 CPC, there is no provision that while dealing with the issue of impounding a document, the proceeding of trial Court shall be stayed. Under the aforesaid provision, the trial Court has power to impound the document, thus, his submission is that the Judge, Small Causes Court has committed manifest error of law in staying the further proceeding of the Small Causes Suit No.42 of 2010.
He next submitted that the period of lease agreement has also been expired, therefore, in case the prayer made by respondent No.2 is accepted that the Collector, Lucknow may fix stamp duty to be paid on the document, even then the lease deed cannot be validated after expiry of its efficacy.
The respondent No.2 by filing an application dated 21.07.2015 for dismissal of the writ petition supported by an affidavit raised preliminary objection in regard to maintainability of the writ petition before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The preliminary objection raised by the respondent No.2 was considered by this Court and vide order dated 17.04.2019, it was held that the writ petition against the order passed by the Judge, Small Causes Court is maintainable. The order was subject matter of Challenge in S.L.P. No.14071 of 2019, which was decided vide judgment and order dated 05.07.2019, whereby the order passed by this Court was affirmed.
Having heard the submission advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner, I perused the material on record and the impugned orders.
On perusal of the application dated 30.10.2012 (Annexure No.12 to the writ petition), it is reflected that the respondent No.2 requested that the document No.C-21/5 to 9 be impounded and be sent to the Collector, Lucknow for calculation of stamp duty and recovery of the same from the plaintiff.
Under Order 13 Rule 8 CPC, it has been provided as under:
"8. Court may order any document to be impounded - Notwithstanding anything contained in Rule 5 or Rule 7 of this Order or in Rule 17 of Order VII, the Court may, if it sees sufficient cause, direct any document or book produced before it in any suit to be impounded and kept in the custody of an officer of the Court, for such period and subject to such conditions as the Court thinks fit."
On its perusal, it is apparent that the Judge, Small Causes Court has been empowered under the aforesaid provision to impound a document on his satisfaction, but there is no provision that while exercise of power under Order 13 Rule 8 CPC, he will stay the further proceeding of the trial of the suit filed before him.
Vide impugned orders under challenge, the Judge, Small Causes Court has exceeded its jurisdiction in staying the proceeding of the suit, thus, the same cannot be sustained in law.
In view of the observation made above, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed by setting aside the impugned orders dated 07.03.2013 and 17.10.2013 to the extent, whereby the proceeding of Small Causes Suit No.42 of 2010 has been kept in abeyance from year 2013 by the Judge, Small Causes Court.
The Judge, Small Causes Court is directed to expedite the hearing of Small Causes Suit No.42 of 2010 and to decide the same within a period of one year from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.
Order Date :- 28.8.2019 Adarsh K Singh