AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
B.S. Verma, J.—Heard Mr. Devesh Ghildiyal, Advocate for revisionist and Mr. Piyush Garg, Advocate for Respondents.
This revision petition has been filed against the order dated 21-8-2010, in SCC Misc. Case No. 35 of 2010, Rajeev Bhatt v. Yogendra Singh Negi and Ors., and order dated 30-4-2010, in SCC Suit No. 18/2009, Yogendra Singh Negi v. Rajeev Bhatt, passed by Additional District Judge, Rishikesh, District Dehradun.
Vide order dated 30-4-2010 the W.S. filed by Defendant No. 2 was taken on record and the suit was decreed exparte U/O 8 Rule 10 CPC against Defendant No. 1 for non-filing the W.S. by Defendant No. 1 within 90 days. Against which the application U/O 9 Rule 13 CPC for setting aside the order dated 30-4-2010, moved before the trial court and the said application was dismissed by the order dated 21-8-2010, on the ground that the compliance of provision of Section 17 of Judge Small Cause Courts Act, has not been made by the revisionist.
Learned Counsel for the revisionists has contended that during the pendency of this revision amendment application was moved before the trial court that the W.S. filed by Defendant No. 2 be read on behalf of Defendant No. 1 also and the same was allowed by the trial court.
Therefore, in view of the fact that the application was allowed to decide the suit by allowing the amendment application, the impugned orders are to be quashed otherwise they will create legal hurdle in deciding the suit on behalf of the revisionist.
The revision is allowed and the impugned orders dated 30-4-2010 and 21-8-2010 are set aside.
However, the trial court is directed to decide the SCC Suit on its merit expeditiously as far as possible.