Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ramesh Chandra Parashar vs Dinendra Parashar on 16 February, 2024
Author: Achal Kumar Paliwal
Bench: Achal Kumar Paliwal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
FA No. 2241 of 2023
(RAMESH CHANDRA PARASHAR AND OTHERS Vs DINENDRA PARASHAR AND OTHERS)
Dated : 16-02-2024
Shri R.K. Sanghi - Advocate for the appellants.
Shri Deepesh Joshi - Advocate for the respondents No.1 to 10.
Heard on I.A.No.17912 of 2023 and I.A.No.18313 of 2023, application
under Order 41 Rule 5 of CPC read with Section 151 of CPC.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant, after referring to counter claim,
judgment decree passed by Courts below, Order 2 Rule 2 CPC, provisions of
Order 41 Rule 5 Sub-rule 3 (B)(C) and in case of Sudha Verma and Others
Vs. Radhavallabh Sharma ILR 2012 MP 519, submits that no mense profit
has been claimed by respondent and no such mense profit has been awarded by
Courts below. Only decree passed against the appellant is that he deliver
possession of suit property to respondent. The appellant is not a tenant, he is
only a licency. Further, appellant has made improvements in the property and
has spent an amount Rs.10,00,000/-. On above grounds, it is urged that, while
granting stay in appellant's favour, appellant cannot be directed to deposit any
amount as mense profit on any ground whatsoever
3. Learned counsel for the respondent, after referring to Martin and Harris
Private Limited and Another Vs. Rajendra Mehta and Others (2022) 8
SCC 527527, submits that as disposal of present appeal would take time and
appellant is in possession of suit property and appellant has been directed by
the Courts below to handover possession of suit property to respondent and
suit property is situated in heart of the Bhopal, therefore, appellant be directed
to deposit Rs.50,000/- per month in the Court etc.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the
case.
5. It is correct that appellant has been directed by Courts below to handover
possession of suit property to respondent and respondent did not claim any
relief of mense profit before the Courts below and no such relief has been
granted to respondent.
6. In the facts and circumstances of the case, early hearing of appeal is not
possible and appellant is in possession of suit property. Hence, it would be
appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the case to direct appellant to
deposit Rs.25,000/- as Usage charges till disposal of present appeal in the
Court. No party would be entitled to withdraw this amount before disposal of
present appeal. Subject to aforesaid condition, impugned judgment and decree
passed by the trial Court shall remain stayed till disposal of this appeal.
7. It is also directed that appellant shall file an undertaking before the trial
Court to the effect that in case, he does not succeed, he will handover
possession of suit property to respondent as per judgment passed by the trial
Court.
8. Aforesaid I.As. are disposed off accordingly.
9. List for final hearing in due course.
(ACHAL KUMAR PALIWAL)
JUDGE
vai
