Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 1263 UK
Judgement Date : 4 May, 2023
Office Notes,
reports, orders or
SL. proceedings or
Date COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No directions and
Registrar's order
with Signatures
04.05.2023 CLR No.58 of 2023
Hon'ble Alok Kumar Verma, J.
On 22.02.2021, learned Trial Court allowed the SCC Suit (No.39 of 2011, "Satish vs. Shri Daya Shankar") by passing an eviction order against the revisionist in relation to the suit property and directed the revisionist to pay outstanding rent at the rate of Rs.2000/- per month and mesne profit at the rate of Rs.200/- per day with effect from the date of termination of tenancy till the possession of the suit property is handed over to the respondent. Revisionist filed a Revision (27 of 2021, "Daya Shankar vs. Satish") against the said judgment and decree before this Court. On 16.03.2021, this Court had passed the following order in the said Revision:-
"Till the next date of listing, the effect and operation of the impugned judgment and order dated 22.02.2021 as has been passed by the 4th Additional District Judge, Dehradun in S.C.C. No.39 of 2011, "Shri Satish Vs. Shri Daya Shankar" would be kept in abeyance, subject to the condition that the revisionist deposits the entire decreetal amount within a period of four weeks from today and continue to remit the regular rent by the 10th of every month.
It is, however, made clear that in an event of failure to comply with any of the conditions, the interim order would automatically stands vacated."
2. Heard Mr. I.P. Kohli, learned counsel for the proposed revisionist and Mr. B.P. Nautiyal, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Mohd. Matlub, learned counsel for the respondent- decree holder.
3. The challenge in the present proposed Revision, filed under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887, is to an order dated 13.03.2023, passed by learned Judge, Small Causes Court/IVth Additional District Judge, Dehradun in SCC Miscellaneous Case No.16 of 2021, "Daya Shankar vs. Satish", by which, the Application, filed by the revisionist- judgment-debtor under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, has been dismissed on the ground of non- compliance of the order dated 16.03.2021, passed by this Court in Civil Revision No.27 of 2021.
4. Mr. I.P. Kohli, Advocate, contended that the entire decretal amount was deposited within stipulated period.
5. Mr. R.P. Nautiyal, learned Senior Advocate through video conferencing contended that firstly the revisionist did not deposit the entire decretal amount within stipulated period and secondly he had to deposit Rs.8,33,400/- (Rupees eight lakh thirty three thousand four hundred).
6. Mr. I.P. Kohli, Advocate, requested three days' time to file his calculations.
7. List on 09.05.2023.
(Alok Kumar Verma, J.) 04.05.2023
Neha
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!