Back
2021 Supreme(UK) 546
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.
Ilam Chand & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Shiv Narayan Agarwal & Ors. - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 171 of 2019
Decided On : 07-04-2021
Tapan Singh, Advocate, Nikhil Singhal, Advocate
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a party's participation in an inspection without raising any objection binds them by the inspection report, and failing to challenge the report may result in being bound by its findings.
Headnote:
Amin - Landlord and Tenant Dispute - SCC Suit No. 82 of 1975 - Section 15 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act - The court discussed the interpretation of the order of remand, the competence of the Amin to conduct inspection, and the acceptance of the Amin's report. The key legal provisions discussed include the requirements of conducting a survey, the competence of the Amin, and the implications of not challenging the Amin's report.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a dispute over a SCC suit filed in 1975 for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent. The suit was decided in favor of the landlord, and subsequent revisions and writ petitions were filed challenging the judgments.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner had participated in the inspection conducted by the Amin, did not challenge the Amin's report, and therefore, was bound by the findings based on the Amin's report. As no other points were pressed, the writ petition was dismissed.
Issues: The issues involved the competence of the Amin to conduct inspection, the acceptance of the Amin's report, and the implications of not challenging the Amin's report.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner's participation in the inspection without raising any objection bound them by the Amin's report, and as no other points were pressed, the writ petition was dismissed.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed.
JUDGMENT
Sharad Kumar Sharma, J. - Heard Mr. Tapan Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Nikhil Singhal, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. Brief fact, which engages consideration in the present writ petition are that one late Lala Har Prashad, who was the father of the respondent Nos. 1 to 8, had filed a SCC suit; being a SCC Suit No. 82 of 1975, Lala Harprasad vs. Radheyshyam and others, i.e. the predecessors of the present petitioners. The said SCC suit, which was thus preferred, the plaint averments (as contained in Annexure 1 to the writ petition), a decree was sought in the nature for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent, as prayed for therein in relation to the property, i.e. the tenement in question which was more appropriately described in the said suit, which is extracted hereunder:-
3. The SCC suit in question, which was instituted as back as on 09.06.1975, the same was contested by the defendants (petitioners herein), by way of filing a detailed written statement on 30.05.1977, denying the plaint averments. On exchange of the pleadings, the learned SCC Court, after considering the rival contentions of the parties to the proceedings under Section 15 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Ac, had framed the following points of determination, to decide the controversy as raised by the parties to the proceedings:-
4. One of the point of determination, which was raised therein, was with regards to the determination of point No. 4, it was the establishment of the relationship of landlord and tenant and whether the plaintiffs or defendant No. 10 happens to be the landlord of the property in question?
5. The said Suit, after the exchange of the pleadings was decided by the Court of Additional District Judge, vide its judgement dated 29.09.2011, who had allowed the revision, being SCC Revision No. 15 of 2006, Shiv Narayan and others vs. Radhey Shyam and others, preferred against the judgement of the Judge, Small Causes Court, which was rendered on 02.05.2006 in the aforesaid SCC Suit being Suit No. 82 of 1975. Consequently, the matter was remanded to the trial Court for its fresh determination, as per the directions contained in the judgment of remand dated 29.09.2011.
6. The learned Revisional Court, while reversing the judgement of Judge, Small Causes Court, vide its judgment dated 29.09.2011, had passed an order of remand and particularly, the directives as given in the order of remand was contained in the following paragraphs of the aforesaid judgement which is extracted hereunder:
7. In fact, while passing an order of remand, if the aforesaid para as referred to above, if it is taken into consideration, the learned Revisional Court has directed for the conduct of survey by "competent/official surveyor".
8. It is on the revival of the proceedings before the Judge, Small Cause Court, that the plaintiff/respondent herein had filed an application, praying for conducting the survey as it has been directed by the judgement of remand of the property in dispute, which as per the records, was shown to have been conducted by an Amin of the District Court and the report in that regard was also submitted in the proceedings of SCC Suit No. 82 of 1975, Har Prasad vs. Radhey Shyam, which was numbered as an exhibit as paper No. 28(ga).
9. If the findings which had been recorded therein are taken into consideration in the report thus submitted on 16.09.2014, which was numbered as paper No. 28(ga), in fact, the Amin has submitted the report after holding the spot inspection after prior notice, in which, admittedly the petitioners had participated in the proceedings of inspection by Court Amin, when the report was submitted along with the map, identifying the property in dispute, which was the subject matter of the proceedings of the SCC Suit No. 82 of 1975, Har Prasad vs. Radhey Shyam.
10. Based on the said report, the Judge, Small Causes Court/3rd Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dehradun by the judgement dated 21
