Dismissed¶13

Dheeraj Kumar alias Jalj Srivastav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and Anr.

Allahabad HC1 Jul 2025SCCR/10/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

No relief to the revisionist. The JSCC Court was directed to decide pending Suit no. 10 of 2017 within four months and send a report through the Senior Registrar; the Senior Registrar was to communicate the order for compliance; no unnecessary adjournment to be granted to either party. ¶13

Dheeraj Kumar alias Jalj Srivastav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and Anr. — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶13

Issue for consideration

Whether the J.S.C.C. Court's order dated 01.05.2025 dismissing the revisionist-tenant's amendment application to the written statement called for interference in revision.

¶8

Court's answer

The amendment application filed on 11.08.2023 contained no averment that the defects sought to be amended in the written statement were not within the revisionist's knowledge when the written statement was filed; the Court characterized it as an attempt to prolong proceedings pending since 2017, supporting the refusal to interfere with its dismissal.

¶9

Ratio / Principle

The revisionist's reliance on the landlord's affidavit and statement to contend that amounts paid had not been adjusted was rejected, because the revisionist is admittedly a tenant without any agreement, making his continuance in the premises without authority.

¶11

Key takeaways

Considering the reasonings recorded in the impugned order, no interference was called for and the revision was dismissed, with directions to the JSCC Court to decide Suit no. 10 of 2017 within four months and report to the Senior Registrar, and with no unnecessary adjournments to either party.ratio¶12

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

SCC Revision before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench (Pankaj Bhatia, J.; Neutral Citation 2025:AHC-LKO:36962): revision against the J.S.C.C. Court's order dated 01.05.2025 dismissing the tenant-revisionist's amendment application (filed 11.08.2023) to his written statement (filed 2018) in Suit no. 10 of 2017, pending since 2017, was dismissed. The amendment application carried no averment that the defects sought to be amended were unknown at the time of filing the written statement and was held to be an attempt to linger on the proceedings. The contention that payments made to the landlord were unadjusted was rejected since the revisionist is admittedly a tenant without agreement, his continuance being without authority. The JSCC Court was directed to decide Suit no. 10 of 2017 within four months and report to the Senior Registrar, with no unnecessary adjournments to either party.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:36962

¶2

Court No. - 7

¶3

Case :- S.C.C. REVISION No. - 10 of 2025

¶4

Revisionist :- Dheeraj Kumar Alias Jalj Srivastav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home And Anr.

¶5

Counsel for Revisionist :- Surya Prakash,Arsh Bugga

¶6

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and perused the record.

¶8

The present revision has been filed by the revisionist challenging an order dated 01.05.2025, whereby amendment application filed by the revisionist (tenant) was dismissed.

¶9

While doing so, the J.S.C.C. Court has recorded that the written statement was filed in the year 2018 and the various dates were fixed for hearing, in which, the revisionist had taken adjournments and an amendment application was filed on 11.08.2023, proposing to amend the written statement. The amendment application is on record. In the said application, there is no averment that defects sought to be amended in the written statement were not in the knowledge of the revisionist at the time of filing of the written statement. Clearly, it was an attempt to linger on the proceedings, which are pending since the year 2017.

¶10

The counsel for the revisionist places reliance on the affidavit and the statement of the landlord to argue that the revisionist had made certain amounts but have not been adjusted.

¶11

The said stand cannot be accepted as admittedly the revisionist is a tenant without there being any agreement and thus in continuance in the premises is without any authority.

¶12

Considering the reasonings recorded in the impugned order, no interference is called for. The

¶13

revision is dismissed with direction to the JSCC Court to decide the pending Suit no. 10 of 2017 positively within a period of four months from today and send a report to this Court through the Senior Registrar of this Court. It is made clear that no unnecessary adjournment shall be granted to either of the party. The Senior Registrar is directed to communicate this order to the JSCC Court for compliance.

¶14

Order Date :- 1.7.2025 Arun

¶15

Digitally signed by :- ARUN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Dheeraj Kumar alias Jalj Srivastav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dheeraj Kumar alias Jalj Srivastav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Anil Kumar Pandey vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Co-Operative Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

Ram Murat Yadav and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Farid Vs State of U.P. through Secretary, Home Department, Lucknow and Another

Shrawan Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Housing and Urban Planning Deptt. Lko. and Another

Kamlesh Chandra Maurya Vs Neetu Maurya and 2 Others

C/M Madarsa Naimiya Aftabe Rasool Mishrauliya Thru.Manager Ainullah Khan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Minority Welfare Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others