Smt. Madhu Maheshwari And Another vs Arvind Kumar Jain And 6 Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 8654 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 2
 

 
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 1190 of 2023
 

 
Petitioner :- Smt. Madhu Maheshwari And Another
 
Respondent :- Arvind Kumar Jain And 6 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Gulrez Khan,Javed Husain Khan
 
Counsel for Respondent :- Sanjai Singh,Komal Mehrotra
 

 
Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari,J.

Heard Sri Javed Husain Khan, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents.

After some argument, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, so far as, first part of Order XV, Rule 5, C.P.C. is concerned, that has been complied and the petitioner's predecessor, namely, Sri Ashok Kumar Jain has deposited the entire amount before first date of hearing, but, so far as, second part of Order XV, Rule 5, C.P.C, i.e. deposit of rent on month to month basis is concerned, it is having slight default, but the same has also been deposited and also accepted by the opposite party.

He lastly submitted that instead of joining the issue on this point, he is ready to pay the cost and this Court may direct the Small Causes Court to decide the case on merits, considering this fact that written statement has been filed in the 2017, evidence has also been led before the Court below and only argument is required. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of Lucknow Bench of this Court in S.C.C. Revision No. 5 of 2020 (Sanjeev Kumar Sibbal Vs. Pramod Kumar Tiwari), decided on 08.02.2021

Learned counsel for the respondents opposed the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner, but could not dispute the facts raised by him as well as judgment relied so upon, in which after imposing the cost, the Court has directed to reconsider the application.

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

In the impugned order dated 11.03.2022, there is a chart having the detail of date of payment. From the perusal of the same, it is apparently clear that though there is slight default, but all amount has already been paid from time to time with slightest delay and even after the year 2020, the entire amount has been paid within time. Therefore, instead of deciding this case on merits, in the larger interest of justice, a cost of Rs. 30,000/- is imposed upon the petitioner, which shall be deposited by the petitioner before the court concerned within three weeks from today and the same shall be released in favour of opposite party.

In case the cost is deposited, the impugned order dated 11.03.2022 shall not be given effect and the Court below shall proceed to decide the case on merits maximum within three months thereafter.

With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition is disposed of.

Order Date :- 23.3.2023

ADY