AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Hon’ble Siddhartha Sah, J. (Oral)
By means of the present Civil Revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887, the plaintiffs/revisionists have assailed the order dated 30.05.2026, passed by the learned Judge Small Cause Court/District Judge, Dehradun in SCC Suit No. 24 of 2001, Smt. Shanti Devi (deceased) through her LR and another vs. State of Uttarakhand and Others, by virtue of which, the Trial Court has rejected the application of the plaintiffs/revisionists bearing Paper No. 14C under Order XV Rule 5 of CPC.
Admit.
Brief facts for the adjudication of the instant Civil Revision are that a SCC Suit No. 24 of 2001, Smt. Shanti Devi and another vs. State of Uttaranchal and another, was instituted by the plaintiffs/revisionists, herein, in the Court of the Judge SCC /District Judge, Dehradun for recovery of arrears of rent, mesne profits, ejectment, etc. In the said suit, application under Order XV Rule 5 of CPC was allowed by virtue of an order dated 03.05.2002, and the aforesaid SCC Suit came to be decreed by an ex-parte judgment and order dated 24.08.2002. The said ex-parte judgment and order dated 24.08.2002 was assailed by the defendants before this Court by virtue of a Civil Revision, which came to be dismissed on 11.08.2008 & its review was also dismissed on 04.01.2011.
Aggrieved against the ex-parte judgment dated 24.08.2002 and the order of this Court dated 11.08.2008, the defendants preferred SLP before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Other SLPs were also filed, and ultimately, vide judgment dated 12.09.2024, passed in Civil Appeal No(s). 2394/2023, Ranjit Singh vs. State of Uttarakhand and Ors., along with Civil Appeal No. 2395/2023, Shanti Devi (D) through LR’s vs. State of Uttarakhand and Ors., Civil Appeal No. 2396/2023, DAV vs. Ranjit Singh & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 2398/2023, DAV v. Ranjit Singh & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 2399-2401/2023, State of Uttarakhand & Ors. vs. Ranjit Singh and Ors., Civil Appeal No. 2402/2023, State of Uttarakhand vs. Shanti Devi (D) & Ors. and Civil Appeal No. 2403/2023, Senior Superintendent of Police, Dehradun vs. Shanti Devi and Ors., the said Civil Appeals came to be decided by the said common judgment dated 12.09.2024.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court, by the aforesaid judgment dated 12.09.2024, was pleased to set aside the impugned orders and partly allowed the appeals with the following directions :
“12.Hence, we set aside the impugned orders and partly allow the Appeals with the following directions:
(i)The ex parte decree dated 24th August, 2002 passed by the learned District and Session Judge, Dehradun, in SCC Suit No.24/2001 is hereby set aside. The suit is restored to the file of the learned District and Session Judge, Dehradun, subject to the condition of the appellants/defendants depositing an ad hoc amount at the rate of Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees One Lakh) per month from 14th July, 2014 with the Trial Court within a period of two months from today. As stated earlier, the appellants/defendants will be entitled to an adjustment of Rs.86,232/- (Rupees Eighty-six Thousand Two Hundred and Thirty-two) per month deposited by them for the said period. We make it clear that on the failure of the appellants/defendants to deposit the said amount within the stipulated period, the ex parte decree shall stand revived;
(ii)If the direction mentioned above is complied with, even the orders dated 22nd April, 2002 and 3rd May, 2002 will stand set aside;
(iii)The defendants shall continue to deposit the amount at the rate of Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees One Lakh) per month till the disposal of the suit;
(iv)In the event the compliance is made by the appellants/defendants, we direct that the restored suit shall be listed before the learned District and Session Judge, Dehradun in the morning on 25th November, 2024. We make it clear that the defendants and the plaintiffs shall be under an obligation to appear before the Court of the learned District and Session Judge, Dehradun, on that day, and no further notice shall be served upon them. We clarify that on the date of appearance, the appellants/defendants shall file a reply to the application for striking out the defence, and no further time shall be granted to them for that purpose. If the appellants/defendants fail to file a reply to the application for striking out their defence on that day, the Trial Court will be justified in proceeding with the hearing of the said application without the reply of the appellants/defendants;
(v)Only after deciding the application for striking out the defence, depending upon the outcome of the said application, the Trial Court will pass orders regarding permitting the appellants/defendants to file written statement;
(vi)The amounts deposited in this Court at the rate of Rs.86,232/- (Rupees Eighty-six Thousand Two Hundred and Thirty-two) per month with accrued interest thereon shall be transferred by the Registry of this Court to the Trial Court at Dehradun after expiry of the present fixed deposit. We direct the Trial Court to invest the amount which may be deposited by the appellants/defendants in terms of this judgment and the amount which will transferred by the Registry of this Court to the Trial Court in a fixed deposit with any nationalised bank;
(vii)After the application for striking out the defence is decided, it will be open for the plaintiffs to apply for withdrawal of the amounts. The Trial Court shall decide the said application on its own merits. All contentions on that behalf are left open;
(viii)We make it clear that we have made no adjudication on the merits of the controversy, including the title issue raised by the appellants/defendants. The Trial Court shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law in the restored suit on its own merits;
(ix)We make it clear that as we have directed the appellants/defendants to deposit the ad hoc amount at the rate of Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees One Lakh) per month, we are not passing a separate order of costs;
(x)Considering the fact that the suit is of the year 2001, it is obvious that the Trial Court will give necessary out of turn priority for hearing the application for striking out the defence. In the event the suit is required to be heard on merits, the Trial Court will give the necessary priority to the disposal of the suit, considering the fact that the suit is of the year 2001;
(xi)In view of this judgment, the pending execution application for execution of the decree will not survive. However, if the ex parte decree is revived in terms of the clause (i) above, the execution application shall proceed;
(xii)The findings recorded in this judgment are only for the limited purposes of considering the legality and validity of the ex parte order and the order by which the defence of the defendants was struck out. This judgment will not affect any other proceedings pending between the parties and all contentions therein are left open;
(xiii)The Appeals are partly allowed on above terms; and
(xiv)The Registry is directed to immediately return the record of the suit along with a copy of this judgment to the Trial Court.”
It is informed by the learned counsel for the parties that after the aforesaid judgment dated 12.09.2024, the defendants deposited the ad-hoc amount at the rate of ₹ 1,00,000 per month with effect from 14th July 2014 (amounting to ₹19,73,720), and the suit was restored to the file of the learned Judge SCC/District Judge, Dehradun.
The defendants/State filed a reply to the application under Order XV Rule 5 of CPC by way of an objection dated 23.11.2024. Against the objection dated 23.11.202, a reply dated 07.12.2024 was filed. Against the reply of the plaintiffs, the defendants also filed an objection dated 22.01.2025.
Thereafter, the learned Judge, SCC/District Judge, Dehradun heard the parties on the application of the plaintiffs under Order XV Rule 5 of CPC as per directions contained in paragraph 12(vii) of the judgment dated 12.09.2024, and by the impugned judgment and order dated 30.05.2026, came to the conclusion that at this stage, passing an order on the application under Order XV Rule 5 of CPC would be against the spirit of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, since in compliance of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the rent amount is being deposited, and thus, on the said reasoning, proceeded to reject the application under Order XV Rule 5 of CPC.
Aggrieved by the said order dated 30.05.2026, the plaintiffs/revisionists have filed instant Civil Revision.
Assailing the aforesaid impugned order dated 30.05.2026, learned counsel for the plaintiffs/ revisionists has taken the Court through the directions of Hon’ble Supreme Court contained in paragraph no. 12 (i), (iv), (v), and (vii) of the judgment dated 12.09.2024, and learned counsel for the plaintiffs/revisionists would submit that as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 12.09.2024, it was incumbent upon the learned Judge, SCC/District Judge, Dehradun to decide the application under Order XV Rule 5 for striking off the defence on its own merits, and the impugned order dated 30.05.2026 is, in fact, contrary to the directions as contained in paragraph 12 (i), (iv), (v), and (vii) of the judgment dated 12.09.2024, and would submit that the revision deserves to be allowed.
Per contra, learned counsel for the defendants /respondents would draw the attention of the Court to paragraph 10 of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 12.09.2024, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has recorded the statement of the learned Attorney General for India, which is extracted hereunder for ready reference.
“10.There is another aspect of the matter. On 18th May 1999, the 3rd Additional District Judge, Dehradun, passed an order in an Appeal directing the defendants to pay rent at Rs.86,232/ (Rupees Eighty-six Thousand Two Hundred and Thirty-two) per month. The High Court and this Court confirmed the said order. The defendants' liability under the said order was to pay rent at Rs.86,232/- per month from 1st September, 1993. The learned Attorney General for India, on instructions of the State Government, states that the rent at the said rate has been deposited up to date. We take the statement on record.”
Basing upon the aforesaid, learned counsel for the respondents/State would submit that since the rent was deposited up-to-date, there was no question of depositing any rent and the application under Order XV Rule 5 of CPC has been rightly rejected by the learned Judge SCC/District Judge, Dehradun.
Learned State counsel has also drawn the attention of the Court to the reply dated 22.01.2025 and would submit that an amount of ₹2,10,83,450/- has already been deposited during the execution proceedings, and as such, the defendants have already complied with the provisions of Order XV Rule 5 of CPC; therefore, the application under Order XV Rule 5 of CPC is not maintainable and has been rightly rejected by the learned Judge, SCC/District Judge, Dehradun.
After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the record, from paragraph nos. 9 and 10 of the impugned order, it is borne out that the learned Judge SCC/District Judge, Dehradun has been pleased to reject the application under Order XV Rule 5 of CPC on the grounds that passing any order at this stage would be against the spirit of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, where, in compliance with the order, the rent amount is being deposited.
On a query made to the learned State counsel, he has not been able to satisfy the Court as to whether the learned Judge SCC / District Judge Dehradun has decided the application under Order XV Rule 5 of CPC on its own merit, as has been directed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court by virtue of judgment dated 12.09.2024.
Since the learned Judge SCC / District Judge Dehradun has not decided the application under Order XV Rule 5 of CPC on its own merit, hence the same is contrary to the direction as mandated in paragraph 12 of the judgment dated 12.09.2024 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid Civil Appeals.
In such view of the matter, since the application under Order XV Rule 5 of CPC has not been decided on its own merit, hence it would be in the interest of justice that the impugned order dated 30.05.2026 be set-aside, and the matter be remanded to the learned Judge SCC / District Judge, Dehradun to decide the application under Order XV Rule 5 of CPC on its own merit, and as per the directions as contained in paragraph 12 of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 12.09.2024.
Thus, the instant Civil Revision is hereby allowed. The impugned order dated 30.05.2026 passed by the learned Judge SCC / District Judge, Dehradun in SCC Suit No. 24 of 2001, Shanti Devi (Deceased through LR) and another vs. State of Uttarakhand and another is set aside, and the learned Judge SCC / District Judge Dehradun is directed to decide the application under Order XV Rule 5 of CPC on its own merit, strictly as per the directions contained in paragraph 12 of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 12.09.2024.
Pending application, if any, stands disposed of accordingly.