Court No. - 26

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 2162 of

2018

Petitioner :- Dileep Chaurasiya

Respondent :- Kamla Verma And Another

Counsel for Petitioner :- Sunil Srivastava

Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.

This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India

has been filed by the petitioner praying for setting aside

the judgement and order dated 10.08.2017, passed by

learned Additional District Judge / Fast Track Court No.

52, Kanpur Nagar in S.C.C. Revision No. 55 of 2016;

Kamla & others Vs. Dileep Chaurasiya.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has not impleaded the

learned courts below as party. He prays for and is granted

a liberty to correct the array of party and implead the

learned courts below as proforma respondents i.e.

respondent nos. 3 and 4 during the course of day.

Learned counsel for the petitioner while arguing the

matter on the merits has pointed out that the petitioner

had filed a suit for eviction and arrears of rent before the

Judge, Small Causes Court being S.C.C. Suit No. 167 of

2011 (Dileep Chaurasiya Vs. Smt. Kamla Verma &

others). The respondents filed an objection / application

No. 21Ga saying that the cognizance of the S.C.C. suit

may not be taken, as it is barred under Section 23 of the

Provincial Small Causes Court Act. A complex question of

title is involved in the suit and the plaint be returned. This

application was considered on its merit after pleadings

were exchanged by Judge, Small Causes Court and it

rejected the application No.21Ga vide order dated

14.09.2015. The respondents aggrieved by the order

dated 14.09.2015 filed S.C.C. Revision No. 55 of 2016

and the Additional District Judge made all observations in

favour of the landlord and has also observed that the

learned court below has rightly rejected the application

No.21Ga of the tenant, but in the operative portion of the

order impugned perhaps due to inadvertence a sentence

which is really an error apparent on the face of the record

was transcribed which says "Nigranikartagan ki nigrani

swikaar ki jaati hai tatha vidhvan adhinasth nyayalaya

dwara paarit aadesh dinank 14.9.2015 pust kiye jaane

yogya hai."

I have perused the order impugned dated 10.08.2017. I

find that the aforesaid sentence, as pointed out by

learned counsel for the petitioner, seems to be an error

apparent on the face of the record. It is, therefore, struck

off and it should be read as "the revision is rejected" in the

main body of the judgement and order dated 10.08.2017.

The petition is allowed to this extent. The proceeding may

be remitted by the revisional court after suitable

corrections are carried out in the operative portion of the

order impugned dated 10.08.2017 in the light of the

observations made herein above. A correct certified copy

of the order dated 10.08.2017 may be issued to the

petitioner by the revisional court.

Order Date :- 11.4.2018

NS