Court No. - 18

Case :- S.C.C. REVISION No. - 176 of 2022

Revisionist :- Arif Kamal

Opposite Party :- Asif Kamal

Counsel for Revisionist :- Neeraj Agrawal

Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.

Heard Sri Neeraj Agrawal, learned counsel for the Revisionist.

By means of this Revision Petition filed under Section 25 of the Small

Causes Courts Act, 1887, Revision-Applicant has challenged the order

dated 5.11.2022 passed by Judge Small Causes whereby executing Court

has passed the order directing for execution of the judgement and decree

as the petitioner failed to comply with the judgement and decree whereby

he was directed not only to deposit the amount towards the arrears of rent

at the rate of Rs. 300/- with effect from 3.12.2003 till 25.07.2005 to the

tune of Rs. 11,328/- but also damages at the rate of Rs. 3,000/- per month

with effect from 25.07.2005.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that Petitioner preferred

Revision before this Court, bearing SSC Revision No. 131 of 2022 against

the judgement and decree and the same has been admitted vide order dated

23.08.2022 subject to the condition that the petitioner would deposit the

entire decreetal amount on or before 12.09.2022 and with effect from

12.09.2022, he shall be paying the damages for use of an occupation at the

rate of Rs. 5,000/- and so the petitioner deposited the entire decreetal

amount, which was shown in the decree and also started paying Rs.

5,000/- towards the use of an occupation of the premises in question under

the interim order passed by this Court on 23.08.2022. He submits that

since there is no mention in the decree about the amount with effect from

25.07.2005 till 12.09.2022, he did not deposit the amount at the rate of Rs.

3,000/- as was ordered by the trial judge, nor there was any occasion to do

so in the light of the fact that there is no such mention of the amount in the

order of this Court.

In my considered view, the above argument suffers from the basic fallacy

in understanding the decree in the first instance for the reason that decree

is a formal order of the judgement passed. From the perusal of the decree,

I find that the condition of Rs. 3,000/- as was ordered in the judgement,

forms part of the decree; and secondly this Court directed the entire

decreetal amount to be deposited on or before 12.09.2022 meaning thereby

the entire decreetal amount which would have also included the amount at

the rate of Rs. 3,000/- with effect from 25.07.2005. I do not find,

therefore, that the judgement of the executing court is a flawed one so as

to entertain this Revision under Section 25 of the Small Causes Courts

Act, 1887 on merit.

Since it was due to inadvertent mistake, prima-facie it appears, in

understanding the decree, so the amount that was due with effect from

25.07.2005 till 12.09.2022, has not been deposited and there is a Revision

Petition still pending wherein stay order is operating subject to such

deposit, I leave it open for the petitioner to move an appropriate

application seeking permission in the pending Revision for time to deposit

the entire decreetal amount up to 12.09.2022.

Thus subject to what has been observed above, this Revision is

consigned to records.

Order Date :- 28.11.2022

A. Mandhani

Digitally signed by ABHISHEK

MANDHANI

Date: 2022.12.01 16:05:03 IST

Reason:

Location: High Court of Judicature at

Allahabad