Office Notes,

reports, orders or proceedings

SL.

Date or directions COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS

No.

and Registrar’s

order with Signatures

CLR No. 63 of 2025

Hon’ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J.

(through V.C.)

1. Mr. Vishwast Kandpal, learned counsel for the

revisionists.

2. Mrs. Monika Pant, learned counsel for the

respondents through V.C.

3. The instant revision has been preferred by the revisionists against the order dated 07.02.2025 passed by the 2nd Additional District and Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar in SCC Suit No. 11 of 2020 ‘Pawan Kumar Agarwal & Others vs. Urmila Khatri & Others’, whereby the application moved by the revisionists for appointing a hand writing expert for the purposes of adjudicating the alleged signature of receipt regarding the acknowledgment

of payment of rent was rejected.

4. By the instant revision the revisionist sought a relief that the application moved by the revisionist be allowed by appointing a Forensic expert. The 2nd Additional District Judge rejected the application by observing therein that an endorsement of receipt in the visiting card infact is not a receipt and even otherwise the revisionist can adduce their evidence

during the proceeding of the suit.

5. Learned counsel for the revisionist Mr. Vishwast Kandpal on the previous date was directed to get the instructions within how much period he will vacate the premises since admittedly as per his own admission the respondent/plaintiff is the owner of the property in question and the status

of the revisionist is of a tenant.

6. Twice the opportunity was given but the learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the

revisionist is not ready to vacate the premises.

7. Mrs. Monika Pant, who appears for the respondent/plaintiff vehemently argued that earlier for the same cause of action the revision was filed that too was dismissed as withdrawn by giving liberty and thereafter the instant revision has been filed, which is time barred, but there is no supporting application for seeking condonation of

delay.

8. Apart from this, Mrs. Monika Pant also argued that the visiting card, which has been produced by the revisionist is simply a visiting card and it cannot be treated as a receipt of the rent and even otherwise the revisionist has all opportunity to adduce their evidence during the proceeding but he could not asked for the forensic examination of this document.

9. After gone through with the order passed by the 2nd Additional District Judge, I do not find any illegality in the order impugned, hence the instant revision is dismissed being devoid of merit.

10. Apart from this, while dismissing the instant revision, this court is of the view that the SCC suit has to be expedited particularly when the suit was filed in the year of 2020 and it is apparently a summary proceeding and now 5 years has been passed but the suit has not been expedited.

11. In such an eventuality, the concerned court is directed to expedite the SCC Suit No. 11 of 2020 ‘Pawan Kumar Agarwal vs. Urmila Khatri and Others’ as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

(Rakesh Thapliyal, J.)

11.09.2025 PR