P. L. BHARGAVA, J.

( 1 ) SM. Sarup Dei, the pltf-resp. is the owner of a shop in village Dhanaura, pargana Hasanpur, in the Moradabad District. On 6-5-1945, she had let out the shop to Ganga Prasad, the deft-applt. for one year on a yearly rental of Rs. 125/ -. After the expiry of the term of the lease the shop was not vacated by the deft. Accordingly, on 9-8-1946, the pltf instituted the suit, which has given rise to this-appeal, for ejectment of the deft from the shop; On 29-3-1947, the trial Ct dismissed the suit for ejectment on the ground that it was barred in view of the provisions of Section 3, united Provinces (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act III (3) of 1947.

( 2 ) THE pltf thereupon filed an appln for review, on 2-4-1947. She pointed out that Act III (3) of 1947 had not been made applicable to Dhanaura, where the shop was situate. As the suit was not, in fact, governed by the provisions of the said Act, the trial Ct granted the appln for review, set aside the dismissal of the suit and decreed the same.

( 3 ) THE deft preferred an appeal, which came-up for hearing before the learned Civil Judge of moradabad. That appeal was dismissed; hence this appeal.

( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the applt has, in the first place, contended that the appln for review was not properly presented, inasmuch as it was presented to the Munsarim of the Ct. , while, under rule 2 of Order 47, C. P. C. , it should have been made to the Presiding Officer of the Ct. In this connection reliance has been placed upon a decision of this Ct in munro v. The Cawnpore municipal Board, 12 All 57: (1889 AWN 197 ). I, however, see no force in this contention -firstly, because there is nothing on the record to show that the appln was presented to the munsarim. On the other hand, the order sheet goes to show that the appln was presented in Ct and it was ordered to be put-up in the presence of the counsel for the parties. The deft filed an objection on the same day, viz. 2-4-1947. On the next day, the Ct fixed a date for the disposal of the appln.

( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the applt has pointed out that in the Ct below it was admitted that the appln for review was presented to the Munsarim, but there is no reference to any such admission in the judgment of the learned Civil Judge. It appears that the learned Judge proceeded to dispose of the argument advanced on behalf of the applt in regard to the proper presentation of the appln on the assumption that it had been presented in the office and not in Ct.

( 6 ) SECONDLY, even if it were to be assumed that the appln for review, which was addressed to the "judge who passed the decree" was put-up before him, through the official channel --the munsarim and the Reader -- it is not possible to hold that on that account the appln was not properly presented. All that Rule 2 of Order 47, C. P. C. requires is that an appln for review of a decree upon some ground other than the discovery of such new and important matter or evidence as is referred to in Rule 1 or the existence of a clerical or arithmetical mistake or error apparent on the face of the decree, shall be made only to and disposed of by the Judge who passed it and not by his successor, except in cases where notice has been ordered to be issued by the Judge who passed the decree.

( 7 ) IN munros case, (12 All 57: 1889 AWN 197), no doubt, there is an observation at p. 59 that "the appln should have been presented to the Judge and not to the Munsarim", but those observations were made in entirely different circumstances. In that case, an appln for review had been presented to the Munsarim within 90 days of the decree. The appln was insufficiently stamped. The Munsarim reported that the stamp on the appln was insufficient. There was some dispute between the Govt pleader and the Munsarim as to whether or not the stamp was sufficient. In the mean time the period of ninety days expired. After the proper stamp duty had been paid a question arose whether there w

Click Here to Read the rest of this document