2025:UHC:5997 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPMS/1570/2025 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J 1. Mr. Piyush Garg, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. A suit for rent and ejectment filed against petitioner was decreed ex-parte by learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar on 17.08.2024. Petitioner moved an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC for setting aside ex-parte decree, along with delay condonation application, on 06.01.2025. However, prayer for condonation of delay was rejected by learned Civil Judge (S.D.) vide order dated 29.03.2025. Consequently, application, under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC, was also dismissed. 3. Petitioner thereafter filed a revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 before learned 1st Additional District Judge, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar, which is numbered as SCC Revision No. 08 of 2025. Learned Revisional Court admitted the revision and issued notice, but rejected the interim relief application. Thus, feeling aggrieved by rejection of his interim relief application, petitioner has approached this Court. 4. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that if the ex-parte decree, passed by learned Small Cause Court, is executed during pendency of revision, then the purpose of filing revision would be lost. He submits that after admitting 2025:UHC:5997 the revision, it was incumbent upon the Revisional Court to grant protection to the petitioner during pendency of revision. He further submits that petitioner is ready to pay ₹5,000/- per month for use and occupation of the shop in question, without prejudice to his rights and contentions in the pending proceedings. 5. This Court finds some substance in the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner. Since 1st Additional District Judge, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar has admitted the SCC revision filed by petitioner, against rejection of his application filed under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC, therefore, in the absence of interim relief granted in favour of petitioner, the very purpose of filing revision would be lost. 6. In such view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of with a request to Revisonal Court to decide revision filed by petitioner, within six months. Till decision in the revision, petitioner shall not be dispossessed from the shop in question, provided petitioner pays ₹5,000/- per month as use and occupation charges of the shop in question, w.e.f. July, 2025. (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J) 10.07.2025 Aswal NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL Digitally signed by NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=eacc6757ee7881e933ff8934f07477005aa85f 9802a3a08b08d1369512ea30f3, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=44EB54CBF00B7698CB6F10C2CE3D26 F5C22DACF4F4610C1FE58A58531726FBB0, cn=NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL Date: 2025.07.10 07:55:23 -07'00' 2025:UHC:5997