Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
YOGENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
Mohammad Arif – Appellant
Versus
Laiq Ahmad – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
YOGENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.
1. Heard Ms Rama Goel Bansal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rupesh Srivastav, learned counsel for the respondent.
2. The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India calls in question the orders dated 03.09.2025 and 09.10.2025 passed by the Judge, Small Causes Court, Bareilly in SCC Suit No. 6 of 2019, as also the order dated 20.11.2025 passed by the learned District Judge, Bareilly in Misc. Civil Case No. 397 of 2025, whereby the revision preferred by the petitioner under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act came to be dismissed as not maintainable.
3. The dispute has its genesis in SCC Suit No. 6 of 2019 instituted by the respondent–plaintiff seeking eviction of the petitioner–defendant from a shop situated at Meena Bazar, Mohalla Tanda, near Imambara Baheri, District Bareilly. The plaintiff asserted his ownership over the premises on the strength of a registered sale deed dated 15.04.1988 and pleaded that the shop in question formed part of Kadri Market, which was constructed during the years 2000–2001.
4. It was the specific case of the plaintiff that the shop was let out to the defendant in the
Procedural laws must promote justice, allowing courts discretion to admit late documents while ensuring fair opportunities for all parties involved in the proceedings.
The court established that procedural delays should not prevent the introduction of relevant evidence, prioritizing substantial justice.
The court's exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and the finding that the existence and relevance of the invoices were not in dispute, and the defendant....
(1) High Court has to exercise its supervisory powers sparingly and in appropriate cases to keep subordinate Courts in their authority. (2) Where a suit is based on documents, furnishing of copy of d....
Compliance with mandatory deposit requirements under Section 17 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act is essential for challenging an ex parte judgment, and procedural missteps do not invalidate ....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
