Rajasthan High Court
Jagannath Prasad vs Devendra Kumar Jindal on 2 February, 2022
Bench: Prakash Gupta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 139/2008
Jagannath Prasad Sharma S/o Shri Kanji Lal (deceased) through
his legal representatives:-
1/1. Smt. Shanti Devi wife of late Shri Jagannath Prasad
Sharma
1/2. Sh. Devi Shankar Sharma son of late Shri jagannath
Prasad Sharma.
1/3. Sh. Kamal Kumar Sharma son of late Shri Jagannath
Prasad Sharma,
1/4. Shri Pawan Kumar Sharma son of late Shri Jagannath
Prasad Meena,
All resident of 48-A, Jawahar Nagar Lohagal Rod, near Punjab
National Bank Ajmer.
---Defendants/appellants
Versus
Devendra Kumar Jindal son of Shri S.K. Jindal, through Jindal &
Company, Thooliya Circle, Jaipur (deceased) through LRS :-
1/1. Shri Anil Kumar Jindal son of late Shri Devendra Kumar
Jindal,
1/2. Shri Sanjay Kumar Jindal son of late Shri Devendra Kumar
Jindal,
1/3. Dr. Rajesh Kumar Jindal son of late Shri Devendra Kumar
Jindal,
1/4. Sh. Manoj Kumar Jindal son of late Shri Devendra Kumar
Jindal,
1/5. Smt. Mamta wife of Shri Deepak and daughter of late Shri
Devendra Kumar Jindal,
All resident of 4/16, Surya Path, Urmila Udhan, Near Sidling
School, Jawahar Nagar Jaipur.
----Plaintiffs/respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. MM Ranjan, Sr. Advocate with Mr.
Rohan Agarwal, Advocate through VC
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Aakash Gupta, Advocate for Mr.
BL Agarwal, Advocate through VC
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH GUPTA
Judgment
(2 of 5) [CSA-139/2008]
02/02/2022
Application No. 2164 dated 28.01.2013
Matter comes up on an application under Order 22 Rule
4 CPC for taking the legal representatives of respondent Devendra
Kumar, who said to be expired on 23.11.2012, on record.
For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same
is allowed and legal representatives of the deceased respondent
Devendra Kumar, detailed in para two of the application, are taken
on record. Amended cause title, which has already been filed, is
also taken on record.
Applications No. 1/2021 and 2/2021
Matter come up on two applications which are as
follow:-
Application (bearing No.1/2021) is filed under Order 22
Rule 3 CPC for taking on record the legal representatives of
deceased appellant Jagannath Prasad Sharma on record, who said
to be expired on 06.05.2020, his legal representatives are detailed
in para No. 1 of the application. Application is not filed within the
prescribed time of limitation and an application (bearing
No.2/2021) has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for
condonation of delay in filing the application under Order 22 Rule
3 CPC.
For the reasons mentioned in the application, the
application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is allowed and
delay in filing application under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC is hereby
condoned.
(3 of 5) [CSA-139/2008]
For the reasons mentioned in the application,
application under Order 22 rule 3 CPC is also allowed and the
abatement, if any, is set aside and the legal representatives of the
deceased appellant Jagannath Prasad Sharma who are detailed in
para No.1 of the application, are taken on record. Amended cause
title which has already been filed, is taken on record.
S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 139/2008
The instant Civil Second Appeal under Section 100 CPC
has been filed by the defendants-appellants (for short 'the
defendants') aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 16 th
February, 2008 passed by the Court of learned Additional District
Judge No. 1, Ajmer whereby the said court dismissed the appeal
filed by the defendants and confirmed the judgment and decree
dated 27th March, 1997 passed by the Court of learned Additilnal
Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ajmer City (North), Ajmer in Civil
Suit No.19/1996.
Learned senior counsel for the defendants, Mr. MM
Ranjan, after arguing the matter at some length, on instruction of
his clients, has not pressed this appeal on merits. The only prayer
made by him is that time upto 31.12.2025 may kindly be granted
to the defendants to vacate the tenanted/suit premises (for short
'the premises').
Learned counsel appearing for the respondents-
plaintiffs (for short 'the plaintiffs') Mr. Akash Gupta on instructions
of his clients has no objection in granting the time as prayed for
by the learned counsel for the defendants for vacating the
premises.
(4 of 5) [CSA-139/2008]
In view of the aforesaid submission of learned counsel
for the parties, this second appeal is being decided in the following
terms:-
1. The defendants shall be entitled to continue in
possession of the premises uptill 31.12.2025 but not
beyond that, subject to condition that they will hand over
the vacant and peaceful possession of the premises to
the plaintiffs on or before 31.12.2025.
2. The defendants shall deposit arrears of mesne profit, if
any, due towards him up to 31.12.2021 @ Rs.130/- per
month within a period of one month from today with the
Bank account of the plaintiffs and thereafter, from 1st
January, 2022 the defendants shall continue to deposit
the mesne profit @ Rs.5000/- per month with the bank
account of the plaintiffs by 15th of each month.
3. The defendants shall not alienate or otherwise create
third party right or hand over possession of the premises
in question to any other person.
4. If the defendants fail to deposit the mesne profit
consecutively for four months, the plaintiffs shall be at
liberty to execute the decree without any further
reference to the Court.
Further, the defendants shall submit an undertaking on
oath incorporating the aforesaid conditions before the trial Court
within a period of four weeks from the date of this judgment. In
case, the defendants fail to submit the undertaking as aforesaid
within four weeks from today and/or commits breach of any of the
conditions of this judgment, the plaintiffs shall be entitled to
execute the decree forthwith and obtain possession of the
premises in accordance with law without further reference to the
Court and also it will be open for the plaintiffs to initiate contempt
proceedings in the Court.
(5 of 5) [CSA-139/2008]
The second appeal stands disposed of accordingly.
Consequently, upon disposal of the second appeal, interim order, if
any, stands vacated and the stay application and other pending
applications, filed therewith, also stand disposed of.
(PRAKASH GUPTA),J
MR/47
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
