Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:45875 Court No. - 6 Case :- S.C.C. REVISION No. - 17 of 2024 Revisionist :- Rajesh Khanna Opposite Party :- Shyam Kumari Bhargava And 17 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Brijesh Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- Dheeraj Kumar Yadav,Pratap Singh Mehra Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The present revision has been filed challenging an order dated 07.09.2024 whereby the application of the tenant, revisionist herein, filed under Order IX Rule 7 of C.P.C. read with section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act was dismissed. 3. The facts in brief are that an SCC suit was filed against the revisionist in the year 1991. Some of the proforma respondents and co-owners sold part of their property. The persons, who had purchased the property, moved an impleadment application, which came be rejected on 25.08.2018. Challenging the order dated 25.08.2018, the proforma respondents preferred an SCC Revision No.74 of 2018 before this Court. The said revision came to be allowed on 16.10.2019 whereby the matter was remanded for deciding the said application afresh filed by the the persons claiming their rights through proforma respondents. The said impleadment application came to be rejected once again on 05.01.2024 and the case was proceeded ex-parte against them. The revisionist, who is a tenant, did not appear in the proceedings as such an order came to be passed against him for proceedings ex-parte. Taking the benefit of the limitation, the co-owners filed an application under Order IX Rule 7 of C.P.C. read with section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act. The SCC Court noticed the conduct of the parties and held that the tenant was avoiding appearance in the suit, the SCC court vide order dated 11.03.2024. The trial court also recorded that the tenant was not interested in pursuing the matter and the trial court after adjourning the matter for about five years ultimately decided ex-parte on 05.01.2024 and 11.03.2024. 4. In view of the conduct of the revisionist, the application filed by the tenant/revisionist for recalling the order proceeding ex- parte came to be dismissed. Challenging the said order, the present revision has been filed. 5. Considering the fact that the said suit was filed in the year 199, the tenant/revisionist has been delaying the proceedings for a period of four years and they did not participate in the proceedings, taking advantage of the disputes between the landlord and proforma respondents, the conduct of the revisionist cannot be appreciated. 6. However, as a last opportunity, the tenant/revisionist is permitted to contest the proceedings. The order dated 05.01.2024 and 11.03.2024 are on record. The Revision is allowed with the direction to the SCC Court to decide the pending SCC Case No.11 of 1991 positively within a period of six months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order and in accordance with law. 7. It is further directed that no adjournment shall be granted to either of the parties and in case, any adjournment is sought, a cost of Rs.5000/- shall be imposed on the parties, who sought adjournment. 8. For unduly delaying the proceedings, a cost of Rs.1,00,000/- is imposed upon the revisionist, which shall be deposited in the SCC suit No.11 of 1991 within a period of one month. 9. In the event of not depositing the cost, the benefit of this order shall not be available to the revisionist. (Pankaj Bhatia, J.) Order Date :- 6.8.2025 akhilesh/- Digitally signed by :- AKHILESHWAR KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench