Judgment Summary: Small Causes Court vs. Revisionist

In a recent judgment by the Gujarat High Court, the case of Small Causes Court vs. the Revisionist was reviewed. The Court examined the revisional jurisdiction under Section 29(2) of the Gujarat Rent Act, addressing the issue of vacating the ex-parte ad-interim relief granted earlier. The judgment emphasizes the limits of revisional powers and the significance of errors that go against the law in decision-making. Stay tuned to learn more about the insights provided by the High Court in this legal matter.

Facts

• Communication dated 20.10.2023 challenged
• Special Civil Application No.851 of 2024 pending adjudication
• Revisionist filed Special Civil Application No.16879 of 2023 on 09.10.2023, later withdrawn
• Defendants filed Exh.30 application under Order VII Rule 11 stating Small Causes Court lacks jurisdiction
• Opponent No.8 applied to join as necessary and proper party in AFO No.2 of 2023, allowed by Appellate Bench
• The revisionist approached the Court under Section 29(2) of the Gujarat Rent Act after being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the order vacating the interim relief.
• On 23.03.2023, an ex-parte interim injunction was granted by the learned Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court, Ahmedabad.
• On 20.10.2023, the Collector, Ahmedabad, directed the revisionist to elect one of the three available alternative options.
• The revisionist has requested to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 04.05.2024 passed by the learned Appellate Court.
• The ex-parte ad-interim injunction granted on 23.03.2023 was vacated by the learned Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court in the impugned order dated 04.05.2024.

Arguments

• Mr. K.V. Shelat represented the applicant, the revisionist – plaintiff.
• Mr. Kamal Trivedi, the Advocate General, appeared for Mr. G.H. Virk, representing the opponent No.8.
• The revisionist – plaintiff filed HRP Suit No.110 of 2022 at the Small Causes Court, Ahmedabad, seeking declaration as a tenant and injunction against any unauthorized possession disturbances.
• Arguments were presented by the plaintiff’s advocate for both the interim injunction application (Exh.6) and the application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Exh.30).
• On 20.12.2022, the defendant’s advocate requested an adjournment for the production of citations.
• The revisionist is aggrieved by the impugned order rejecting the application for extending the ex-parte ad-interim status-quo.
• The Appellate Bench vacated the ad-interim relief in terms of status-quo, leading to a communication from the City Mamlatdar for alternative accommodation.
• The learned Advocate General argued against any interference in the impugned order, citing adjournments taken by the revisionist’s advocate.
• The Collector instructed the revisionist to select alternative accommodation and vacate the suit premises within 10 days.
• The Appellate Bench questioned why the parties did not proceed with the suit during the appeal.
• The Appellate Court erroneously relied on a direction in another matter regarding compensation, which is subject to challenge in a pending application.
• The revisionist’s advocate requested the ex-parte ad-interim relief to continue until certain applications are decided by the Small Causes Court, which the Appellate Court rejected.

Analysis

• Ad-interim relief was granted to maintain status-quo for the suit property
• The ad-interim relief has been continuing since it was granted
• The Appellate Court and the competent Courts vacated the ex-parte ad-interim relief by way of status quo concurrently.
• Revisional power under Section 29(2) of the Rent Act was invoked for limited purposes to ensure the decision of the competent Courts was according to law.
• The Court referred to previous case law such as (1981) 3 SCC 502, (1998) 7 SCC 383, 1994(1) G.L.H. 324, and Civil Revision Application No.610 of 2018 for guidance.
• Revisional powers can only be exercised to correct errors that make the decision contrary to the law or errors that go to the root of the decision.
• Revisional powers do not allow the High Court to rehear the matter and re-appreciate the evidence.
• Mere possibility of a different view on re-appreciation of evidence is not grounds for exercising revisional jurisdiction.
• The contention regarding the submission of applications below Exh. 30 and Exh. 6 did not impact the decision of the Appellate Court.

Decision

• The Civil Revision Application has been dismissed by the Court.
• The matter was adjourned multiple times with interim relief granted below Exh.6.
• The Court declined to exercise its revisional jurisdiction.
• The competent Courts had made a decision considering the facts and merits.
• The Court did not interfere with the impugned order dated 04.05.2024 passed by the Appellate Bench of Small Causes Court at Ahmedabad.
• The Small Causes Court extended the status quo till 23.03.2023 for the revisionist to approach the appellate forum.
• The competent Courts were given the authority to decide on continuing the ex-parte ad-interim relief.
• The ad-interim relief granted below Exh.6 was vacated on 15.03.2023 while granting an adjournment.

Case Title: DURGABEN D/O NATVARLAL PARMAR W/O AMRUTBHAI PARMAR Vs. SABARMATI HARIJAN ASHRAM TRUST

Case Number: R/CRA/232/2024

Click here to read/download original judgement