Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—This writ petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 12.12.1995 passed by Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Shahjahanpur decreeing landlord-respondent’s suit i.e. SCC Suit No. 13 of 1988 for ejectment of petitioner-tenant from premises in dispute and recovery of rent on the ground of default in payment of rent and Revisional Court’s judgment and order dated 19.1.1998 passed by Additional District Judge, Shahjahanpur, dismissing petitioner-tenant’s S.C.C. Revision No. 9/1996.

2. Learned counsel for petitioner contended that petitioner has disputed the title of plaintiff, therefore, suit was not maintainable before Small Causes Court. The plaint ought to have been returned so as to be presented in regular Court in view of Section 23 of Small Causes Court Act, 1887 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act, 1887’). He drew attention of this Court to para 6 of the writ petition, which reads as under :

“6. That the Trial Court also noted the fact that suit was triable as a regular suit and not as a Judge Small Causes Court Suit and proceeded to deal it as regular suit but at the time of judgment he lost sight of this fact and decided the case as Judge Small Causes which renders his judgment wholly without jurisdiction and illegal.”

3. Learned counsel for respondents sought to support the judgments impugned in this writ petition, referring to the reasons stated therein.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

5. Copies of plaint and written statement have not been filed by petitioner alongwith writ petition but the same are on record alongwith counter-affidavit of respondent Nos. 3 to 10. Annexure CA-1 is the copy of plaint of SCC Suit No. 13 of 1988 wherein plaintiff Tasaduk Ali Khan (now deceased and substituted by his legal representatives, namely, respondent Nos. 3 to 10) is owner of the house under tenancy of petitioner-defendant/tenant namely, Hukum Singh. The tenant raised a dispute regarding title of plaintiff-landlord Tasudak Ali whereafter tenant filed injunction suit No. 628 of 1987 in the Court of Munsif, Shahjahanpur which was dismissed on 15.11.1989 whereagainst tenant filed Civil Appeal No. 19 of 1990 and Appellate Court dismissed the Appeal.

6. The landlord filed SCC Suit No. 13 of 1988 for eviction and recovery of rent etc., from the petitioner-tenant. The defendant sustained the suit vide his written statement dated 1.9.1991 disputing plaintiff’s title. The Trial Court proceeded to consider question of title of plaintiff-landlord and found that documentary and oral evidence prove his (plaintiff’s) title while defendant-tenant, except his bare assertions, adduced no evidence to support the claim that he is owner of property in dispute. Having said so, the Court below found that tenant having not paid any rent, committed default and consequently, it decreed the suit vide judgment dated 12.12.1995.

7. The tenant thereafter filed SCC Revision No. 9 of 1996. The Revisional Court found that on the question of title, issue was decided in injunction suit, filed earlier by tenant himself, and that suit was decided by Trial Court as well as Appellate Court both in favour of plaintiff-landlord hence, the said findings attained finality and would operate as res judicata. On the question of title, i.e., whether the plaint ought to have been returned by Trial Court, the Revisional Court held, when frivolous dispute of title is raised, the Small Causes Court is not bound to return a plaint on mere denial of title since Section 23 provides that the Court, when finds that for granting relief, question of title would have to be decided necessarily, only then it may return the plaint, but, there is no any obligation at all, for that purpose, particularly, when, it finds that the issue raised is frivolous.

8. This is an interesting case where the parties have proceeded without understanding as to what has been done in this matter. A perusal of plaint itself sho