JUDGMENT
K.N. Ojha, J.
1. Heard Sri P.K. Jain, learned Counsel for the defendant-revisionist Vikas Pawar and have gone through the impugned order dated 6.11.2004 passed by the learned Judge Small Causes Court (Additional District Judge, Court No. 5), Muzaffar Nagar, passed in S.C.C. Suit No. 2 of 2003, Smt. Tara Rani and Anr. v. Vikas Pawar, whereby Application 58C moved by the revisionist for framing issues before entering into evidence was rejected.
2. Issue notice and staying proceedings of the SCC suit will linger the final disposal of the case pending before the Court below. It is proper and in the interest of justice that the instant revision is disposed of at the admission stage, specially when this order will not prejudice the plaintiff and in view of the submission made by the learned Counsel for the plaintiff-respondents before the Court below that they had no objection in case issues were framed in the case, as is evident from the impugned order dated 6.11.2004.
3. The fact of the case appears to be that SCC Suit was filed for arrears of rent and ejectment. Relationship of landlord and tenant was denied by the revisionist. Application 58C was moved by the revisionist that issues be framed and thereafter evidence be recorded. The learned Counsel for the plaintiff-respondent, as is evident from the impugned order, raised no objection, but the learned Judge Small Causes Court held that it was SCC suit and it was not necessary to frame issues before evidence was recorded as finding is to be given on the points involved in the case at the time of judgment when the evidence is over. Aggrieved there from instant revision has been preferred.
4. Sri Jain, learned Counsel for the revisionist has cited, 1993 (1) ARC 249, Rameshwar Dayal v. Banda (dead) through his L. Rs. and Anr., in which it has been held by Hon’ble the Apex Court that Sections 2(2), 2(9), 2(14), Order XIV, Rule 1 and 3 and Order XX, Rules 4 (1) and 5 of C.P.C. are applicable to SCC suit also and point for determination is to be specified, which in substance is issue, which is to be framed by the Court of Small Causes like other civil Court deciding civil suits. In view of this law laid down by the Hon’ble the Apex Court the position of law is clear that if a party to SCC suit presses for issues being framed or points of determination in the suit being specified, issues should be framed, evidence be recorded accordingly and then findings should be made.
5. In instant case, as is evident from the impugned order, the learned Counsel for the plaintiff-respondents had no objection at the time when impugned order was being passed for specifying point of determination in the suit or issues being framed. Besides it if issues are framed there will be no prejudice to either of the parties and the points will be more specific and it will be helpful in adducing evidence and deciding the case. Therefore, the revision deserves to be allowed.
6. The revision is allowed and impugned order dated 6.11.2004 passed by learned Judge Small Causes Court (Additional District Judge, Court No. 5), Muzaffar Nagar, is set aside. Learned Judge will frame issues or point of determination involved in the case and will thereafter proceed with the case in accordance with law.
7. A copy of the order be given to the learned Counsel for the revisionist within 24 hours on payment of usual charges for being filed in the Court below alongwith affidavit so that proceedings of the Court below may not linger.