SHANTI DEVI vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

Court
Uttarakhand High Court

UKHC010152792026

2026:UHC:8137
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Civil Revision No. 111 of 2026

Smt. Shanti Devi (since deceased) and another
... Revisionists.


Versus

State of Uttarakhand and another
… Respondents
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Suryakant Maithani, learned counsel for the revisionists.
Mr. Devesh Ghildiyal, learned Brief Holder for the respondent/ State.

----------------------------------------------------------------------


Hon’ble Siddhartha Sah, J. (Oral)

By means of the present Civil Revision under
Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act,
1887, the plaintiffs/revisionists have assailed the order
dated 30.05.2026, passed by the learned Judge Small
Cause Court/District Judge, Dehradun in SCC Suit No.
24 of 2001, Smt. Shanti Devi (deceased) through her LR
and another vs. State of Uttarakhand and Others, by
virtue of which, the Trial Court has rejected the
application of the plaintiffs/revisionists bearing Paper
No. 14C under Order XV Rule 5 of CPC.
2. Admit.
3. Brief facts for the adjudication of the instant
Civil Revision are that a SCC Suit No. 24 of 2001, Smt.
Shanti Devi and another vs. State of Uttaranchal and
another, was instituted by the plaintiffs/revisionists,
herein, in the Court of the Judge SCC /District Judge,
Dehradun for recovery of arrears of rent, mesne profits,
ejectment, etc. In the said suit, application under Order
1

UKHC010152792026

2026:UHC:8137
XV Rule 5 of CPC was allowed by virtue of an order dated
03.05.2002, and the aforesaid SCC Suit came to be
decreed by an ex-parte judgment and order dated
24.08.2002. The said ex-parte judgment and order dated
24.08.2002 was assailed by the defendants before this
Court by virtue of a Civil Revision, which came to be
dismissed on 11.08.2008 & its review was also dismissed
on 04.01.2011.
4. Aggrieved against the ex-parte judgment dated
24.08.2002 and the order of this Court dated
11.08.2008, the defendants preferred SLP before the
Hon'ble Supreme Court. Other SLPs were also filed, and
ultimately, vide judgment dated 12.09.2024, passed in
Civil Appeal No(s). 2394/2023, Ranjit Singh vs. State of
Uttarakhand and Ors., along with Civil Appeal No.
2395/2023, Shanti Devi (D) through LR’s vs. State of
Uttarakhand and Ors., Civil Appeal No. 2396/2023, DAV
vs. Ranjit Singh & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 2398/2023,
DAV v. Ranjit Singh & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 2399-
2401/2023, State of Uttarakhand & Ors. vs. Ranjit Singh
and Ors., Civil Appeal No. 2402/2023, State of
Uttarakhand vs. Shanti Devi (D) & Ors. and Civil Appeal
No. 2403/2023, Senior Superintendent of Police,
Dehradun vs. Shanti Devi and Ors., the said Civil
Appeals came to be decided by the said common
judgment dated 12.09.2024.
5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, by the aforesaid
judgment dated 12.09.2024, was pleased to set aside the
impugned orders and partly allowed the appeals with the
following directions :
2

UKHC010152792026

2026:UHC:8137
“12. Hence, we set aside the impugned orders and
partly allow the Appeals with the following
directions:
th
(i) The ex parte decree dated 24 August, 2002
passed by the learned District and Session
Judge, Dehradun, in SCC Suit No.24/2001 is
hereby set aside. The suit is restored to the file
of the learned District and Session Judge,
Dehradun, subject to the condition of the
appellants/defendants depositing an ad hoc
amount at the rate of Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees
th
One Lakh) per month from 14 July, 2014
with the Trial Court within a period of two
months from today. As stated earlier, the
appellants/defendants will be entitled to an
adjustment of Rs.86,232/- (Rupees Eighty-six
Thousand Two Hundred and Thirty-two) per
month deposited by them for the said period.
We make it clear that on the failure of the
appellants/defendants to deposit the said
amount within the stipulated period, the ex
parte decree shall stand revived;
(ii) If the direction mentioned above is complied
with, even the orders dated 22nd April, 2002
and 3rd May, 2002 will stand set aside;
(iii) The defendants shall continue to deposit
the amount at the rate of Rs.1,00,000/-
(Rupees One Lakh) per month till the disposal
of the suit;
(iv) In the event the compliance is made by the
appellants/defendants, we direct that the
restored suit shall be listed before the learned
District and Session Judge, Dehradun in the
th
morning on 25 November, 2024. We make it
clear that the defendants and the plaintiffs
shall be under an obligation to appear before
the Court of the learned District and Session
Judge, Dehradun, on that day, and no further
notice shall be served upon them. We clarify
that on the date of appearance, the
appellants/defendants shall file a reply to the
application for striking out the defence, and no
further time shall be granted to them for that
purpose. If the appellants/defendants fail to
file a reply to the application for striking out
3

UKHC010152792026

2026:UHC:8137
their defence on that day, the Trial Court will
be justified in proceeding with the hearing of
the said application without the reply of the
appellants/defendants;
(v) Only after deciding the application for
striking out the defence, depending upon the
outcome of the said application, the Trial Court
will pass orders regarding permitting the
appellants/defendants to file written
statement;
(vi) The amounts deposited in this Court at the
rate of Rs.86,232/- (Rupees Eighty-six
Thousand Two Hundred and Thirty-two) per
month with accrued interest thereon shall be
transferred by the Registry of this Court to the
Trial Court at Dehradun after expiry of the
present fixed deposit. We direct the Trial Court
to invest the amount which may be deposited
by the appellants/defendants in terms of this
judgment and the amount which will
transferred by the Registry of this Court to the
Trial Court in a fixed deposit with any
nationalised bank;
(vii) After the application for striking out the
defence is decided, it will be open for the
plaintiffs to apply for withdrawal of the
amounts. The Trial Court shall decide the said
application on its own merits. All contentions
on that behalf are left open;
(viii) We make it clear that we have made no
adjudication on the merits of the controversy,
including the title issue raised by the
appellants/defendants. The Trial Court shall
pass appropriate orders in accordance with the
law in the restored suit on its own merits;
(ix) We make it clear that as we have directed
the appellants/defendants to deposit the ad
hoc amount at the rate of Rs.1,00,000/-
(Rupees One Lakh) per month, we are not
passing a separate order of costs;
(x) Considering the fact that the suit is of the
year 2001, it is obvious that the Trial Court
will give necessary out of turn priority for
4

UKHC010152792026

2026:UHC:8137
hearing the application for striking out the
defence. In the event the suit is required to be
heard on merits, the Trial Court will give the
necessary priority to the disposal of the suit,
considering the fact that the suit is of the year
2001;
(xi) In view of this judgment, the pending
execution application for execution of the
decree will not survive. However, if the ex parte
decree is revived in terms of the clause (i)
above, the execution application shall proceed;
(xii) The findings recorded in this judgment are
only for the limited purposes of considering the
legality and validity of the ex parte order and
the order by which the defence of the
defendants was struck out. This judgment will
not affect any other proceedings pending
between the parties and all contentions therein
are left open;
(xiii) The Appeals are partly allowed on above
terms; and
(xiv) The Registry is directed to immediately
return the record of the suit along with a copy
of this judgment to the Trial Court.”
6. It is informed by the learned counsel for the
parties that after the aforesaid judgment dated
12.09.2024, the defendants deposited the ad-hoc amount
th
₹
at the rate of 1,00,000 per month with effect from 14
July 2014 (amounting to ₹ 19,73,720), and the suit was
restored to the file of the learned Judge SCC/District
Judge, Dehradun.
7. The defendants/State filed a reply to the
application under Order XV Rule 5 of CPC by way of an
objection dated 23.11.2024. Against the objection dated
23.11.202, a reply dated 07.12.2024 was filed. Against
the reply of the plaintiffs, the defendants also filed an
objection dated 22.01.2025.
5

UKHC010152792026

2026:UHC:8137
8. Thereafter, the learned Judge, SCC/District
Judge, Dehradun heard the parties on the application of
the plaintiffs under Order XV Rule 5 of CPC as per
directions contained in paragraph 12(vii) of the judgment
dated 12.09.2024, and by the impugned judgment and
order dated 30.05.2026, came to the conclusion that at
this stage, passing an order on the application under
Order XV Rule 5 of CPC would be against the spirit of the
order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, since in compliance
of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the rent
amount is being deposited, and thus, on the said
reasoning, proceeded to reject the application under
Order XV Rule 5 of CPC.
9. Aggrieved by the said order dated 30.05.2026,
the plaintiffs/revisionists have filed instant Civil
Revision.
10. Assailing the aforesaid impugned order dated
30.05.2026, learned counsel for the plaintiffs/
revisionists has taken the Court through the directions of
Hon’ble Supreme Court contained in paragraph no. 12
(i), (iv), (v), and (vii) of the judgment dated 12.09.2024,
and learned counsel for the plaintiffs/revisionists would
submit that as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court dated 12.09.2024, it was incumbent upon the
learned Judge, SCC/District Judge, Dehradun to decide
the application under Order XV Rule 5 for striking off the
defence on its own merits, and the impugned order dated
30.05.2026 is, in fact, contrary to the directions as
contained in paragraph 12 (i), (iv), (v), and (vii) of the
judgment dated 12.09.2024, and would submit that the
revision deserves to be allowed.
11. Per contra, learned counsel for the defendants
6

UKHC010152792026

2026:UHC:8137
/respondents would draw the attention of the Court to
paragraph 10 of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court dated 12.09.2024, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme
Court has recorded the statement of the learned Attorney
General for India, which is extracted hereunder for ready
reference.
“10. There is another aspect of the matter. On
th rd
18 May 1999, the 3 Additional District
Judge, Dehradun, passed an order in an
Appeal directing the defendants to pay rent at
Rs.86,232/ (Rupees Eighty-six Thousand Two
Hundred and Thirty-two) per month. The High
Court and this Court confirmed the said order.
The defendants' liability under the said order
was to pay rent at Rs.86,232/- per month from
st
1 September, 1993. The learned Attorney
General for India, on instructions of the State
Government, states that the rent at the said
rate has been deposited up to date. We take
the statement on record.”

12. Basing upon the aforesaid, learned counsel for
the respondents/State would submit that since the rent
was deposited up-to-date, there was no question of
depositing any rent and the application under Order XV
Rule 5 of CPC has been rightly rejected by the learned
Judge SCC/District Judge, Dehradun.
13. Learned State counsel has also drawn the
attention of the Court to the reply dated 22.01.2025 and
would submit that an amount of ₹ 2,10,83,450/- has
already been deposited during the execution proceedings,
and as such, the defendants have already complied with
the provisions of Order XV Rule 5 of CPC; therefore, the
application under Order XV Rule 5 of CPC is not
maintainable and has been rightly rejected by the
learned Judge, SCC/District Judge, Dehradun.
7

UKHC010152792026

2026:UHC:8137
14. After hearing the learned counsel for the
parties and after going through the record, from
paragraph nos. 9 and 10 of the impugned order, it is
borne out that the learned Judge SCC/District Judge,
Dehradun has been pleased to reject the application
under Order XV Rule 5 of CPC on the grounds that
passing any order at this stage would be against the
spirit of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, where,
in compliance with the order, the rent amount is being
deposited.
15. On a query made to the learned State counsel,
he has not been able to satisfy the Court as to whether
the learned Judge SCC / District Judge Dehradun has
decided the application under Order XV Rule 5 of CPC on
its own merit, as has been directed by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court by virtue of judgment dated 12.09.2024.
16.
Since the learned Judge SCC / District Judge
Dehradun has not decided the application under Order
XV Rule 5 of CPC on its own merit, hence the same is
contrary to the direction as mandated in paragraph 12 of
the judgment dated 12.09.2024 passed by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the aforesaid Civil Appeals.
17.
In such view of the matter, since the
application under Order XV Rule 5 of CPC has not been
decided on its own merit, hence it would be in the
interest of justice that the impugned order dated
30.05.2026 be set-aside, and the matter be remanded to
the learned Judge SCC / District Judge, Dehradun to
decide the application under Order XV Rule 5 of CPC on
its own merit, and as per the directions as contained in
paragraph 12 of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court dated 12.09.2024.
8

UKHC010152792026

2026:UHC:8137
18. Thus, the instant Civil Revision is hereby
allowed. The impugned order dated 30.05.2026 passed
by the learned Judge SCC / District Judge, Dehradun in
SCC Suit No. 24 of 2001, Shanti Devi (Deceased through
LR) and another vs. State of Uttarakhand and another is
set aside, and the learned Judge SCC / District Judge
Dehradun is directed to decide the application under
Order XV Rule 5 of CPC on its own merit, strictly as per
the directions contained in paragraph 12 of the judgment
of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 12.09.2024.
19. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of
accordingly.

(Siddhartha Sah, J.)
10.09.2026

Shiv/



9