HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD S.C.C. REVISION No. - 132 of 2025 Court No. - 37 HON'BLE CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J. 1. Heard Mr. Abhishek Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist. 2. Brief facts of the case are that SCC suit No. 75 of 2021 filed by plaintiff/ respondent is pending before Judge Small Cause/ Additional District Judge Court No. 3 Kanpur Nagar and evidences of plaintiff is going on. Application (73-Ga) under Order 7 Rule 11 of Civil Procedure Code hereinafter referred to as C.P.C. filed by defendant/ revisionist has been rejected under the impugned order dated 2.9.2025. Hence this revision for the following relief:- "It is therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to call for the records of the Trial Court and to set aside the impugned judgement and decree dated 2.9.2025 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Court No. 3 Kanpur Nagar in SCC suit No. 75 of 2021 (Mohammad Yakoob Vs. Ajay Sonkar) and/ or to pass such other or further order which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case." 3. Counsel for the revisionist submitted that in view of the averment made in the application 73-Ga under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C., the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eye of law. He submitted that application 73-Ga filed by revisionist has been rejected in the arbitrary manner. He submitted that impugned order should be set and revisionist's application should be decided afresh in accordance with law. Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Abhishek Singh, Shailendra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Ajay Sonkar .....Revisionist(s) Mohammad Yakoob .....Opposite Party(s) 4. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the revisionist and perused the records. 5. There is no dispute about the fact that SCC suit filed in the year 2021 is pending before the Judge Small Cause. There is also no dispute about the fact that an application under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. filed on behalf of the defendant has been rejected. 6. A perusal of the order impugned demonstrate that there is no illegality in the order passed by the Judge Small Cause in rejecting the application under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. 7. Reason assigned under the impugned order is that the evidence of the plaintiff is going on and no case for rejecting the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. is made out. 8. It is material to mention that this Court in the matter under Article 227 No. 1907 of 2025 has expedited the proceeding of instant SCC No. 75 of 2020. 9. Considering the finding of fact recorded under the impugned order, there is no scope of interference against the impugned order in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Judge Small Cause is directed to decide the SCC suit expeditiously preferably within period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. 10. The petition is dismissed accordingly. September 25, 2025 Vandana Y. SCCR No. 132 of 2025 2 (Chandra Kumar Rai,J.) Digitally signed by :- VANDANA YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad