Madhya Pradesh High Court
M/S Dyna Chem Through Proprietor Mahesh ... vs Jaipaldas Punjabi on 17 April, 2025
Author: Pranay Verma
Bench: Pranay Verma
1 SA-1053-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
SA No. 1053 of 2024
(M/S DYNA CHEM THROUGH PROPRIETOR MAHESH KUMAR Vs JAIPALDAS PUNJABI )
Dated : 17-04-2025
Shri Akash Rathi - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Prateek Maheshwari - Advocate for the respondent.
Learned counsel for the parties are heard on I.A. No.4056 of 2024
and I.A. No. 802 of 2025 which are applications under Order 41 Rule 5 of
the CPC for stay of execution of the impugned decree.
2. This appeal has been preferred by the defendant/appellant against
the judgment and decree passed by the Lower Appellate Court, whereby the
judgment and decree passed by the trial Court has been set aside and the
claim of plaintiff/respondent for eviction has been decreed.
3. By order 04.02.2025, the appeal has already been admitted for
final hearing by this Court. A perusal of the substantial questions of law as
framed reveals that the dispute between the parties is as regards relationship
of landlord and tenant between them. It has been the specific case of the
appellant that he is not a tenant of the respondent. The trial Court had held
that such relationship had not been proved, whereas the lower appellate
Court has held that the same has been proved. Whether such relationship
exists or not, would be determined only at the time of final hearing of the
appeal.
4. On the basis of specific plea of appellant that he is not a tenant of
the respondent, his defence against eviction has already been struck off by
2 SA-1053-2024
the trial Court by order dated 06.08.2019 which has been affirmed by this
Court by order dated 11.09.2019 passed in M.P. No.4293 of 2019 and M.P.
No.4294 of 2019, which order has been affirmed up to the Apex Court.
5. The decree which has been passed by the lower appellate Court
for payment of arrears of rent of Rs.1,08,000/- and for payment of monthly
rent on and from 13.10.2016 up to the date of payment is itself disputed by
the appellant since it his categoric case that he is not liable to pay any rent to
the respondent. In the event of the appeal being allowed, he would not be
held liable for such payment and in case of the appeal being dismissed the
said amount can very well be recovered by the respondent. In view of
specific plea of the appellant he does not deserve to be directed to pay the
amount under the decree.
6. Though it is contented by the learned counsel for the respondent
that a money decree ought not to be stayed, but in the peculiar facts of the
present case, it is observed that it is not a money decree simpliciter but is a
decree for payment of arrears of rent and monthly rent liability of payment of
which has been specifically disputed by the appellant and on those questions,
the appeal has already been admitted for final hearing.
7. Though it is also contented that earlier an order of status quo was
passed on 10.07.2024, which was made absolute on 13.12.2012 in regard to
possession only hence no order can be passed in respect of monetary part of
the decree, but it is observed that despite passing of the aforesaid orders, the
interim application remained pending and thereafter the appeal has been
admitted for final hearing by order dated 04.02.2025. A fresh stay
3 SA-1053-2024
application has also been filed. Those orders hence would not come in the
way for passing appropriate orders on the stay applications.
8. Thus in the available facts of the case, I.A. No. 4056 of 2024 and
I.A. No. 802 of 2024 are disposed off with a direction to the appellant to
furnish solvent surety before the Executing Court in respect of the decreetal
amount and also an undertaking to the effect that in case the appeal is
dismissed, he would abide by the decree. Subject to the aforesaid, the
execution of the impugned decree is stayed during pendency of this appeal.
List for final hearing in due course.
(PRANAY VERMA)
JUDGE
jyoti
