Heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length and to the learned counsel for the respondents.
The petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the order dated 4.12.2015 passed by the respondent No.1 in S.C.C. Revision No.04/2010.
Brief fact of the case is that Smt. Shakuntala Kapoor filed Suit No.39 of 1980 for arrears of rent, damages and ejectment against the petitioner. Thereafter, Smt. Shakuntala Kapoor died and the respondent Nos.2 and 3 were substituted in place of Smt. Shakuntala Kapoor.
The petitioner filed his written statement in the said suit. After the evidence, vide judgment and decree dated 10.11.2009, the said suit was decreed. Being aggrieved from the said judgment and decree passed by the Judge, Small Causes Court, Lucknow, the petitioner preferred a revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act before the District Judge, Lucknow being S.C.C. Revision No.4 of 2010.
The said revision was transferred from the Court of District Judge to Special Judge (P.C. Act) and presently, the said revision is pending.
During the pendency of the said revision, the opposite parties namely, Smt Kaushalya Duggal and Sri O.P. Duggal sold the property in question to the respondent No.4 through a registered sale deed dated 21.6.2011.
Learned counsel for the petitioner confined his submission to the extent that in case this writ petition is disposed of with the liberty to the petitioner to raise all his objections in the revision with the direction to the revisional court to consider and pass appropriate order taking into consideration the consequential events came into existence after filing of the revision before the revisional court.
Learned counsel for the respondents has no objection if the liberty is given to raise all grievances before the revisional court to both the parties.
Accordingly, without interfering in the order impugned, the writ petition is finally disposed of with the direction to the revisional court to accord permission to the parties to raise their grievances in the revision as well as in regard to the consequential events taken place during the pendency and to consider the same and expedite the matter and pass appropriate order within a period of 8 months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.
It is however further directed that the revisional court shall expedite the hearing and decide the same within a period of 8 months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.
Order Date :- 26.7.2019 Gautam