Manisha Lalwani vs D.V.Paul

CIVIL APPEAL NO.3234-3235 OF 2009 [ Arising out of SLP [C] Nos.2730-2731 of 2008 ]

MANISHA LALWANI ... APPELLANT

VERSUS

D.V.PAUL ...RESPONDENT

JUDGMENT

TARUN CHATTERJEE, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. These appeals are directed against an order dated 6th of

December, 2007, passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at

Jabalpur in MCC No.1876 of 2007, by which the application filed for

extension of time fixed by the High Court while passing the

judgment dated 4th of May, 2006, was disposed of with certain

directions.

3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have

examined the impugned order and other materials on record. While

passing the conditional decree, the High Court on 4th of May, 2006

directed "that the tenant shall deposit a sum of Rs.10,000/- [Rupees

1 ten thousand] by way of compensation in the trial court within a

period of four months from the date of this judgment, for being paid

to the landlord. If the tenant fails to deposit the amount within the

stipulated period of four months, the trial court shall pass a decree

for eviction of the tenant/respondent under Clause (M) of Sub-

section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. If the tenant deposits the

amount within the specified period, the plaintiff's suit shall stand

dismissed." The respondent-tenant had failed to deposit in the trial

court the amount as aforesaid within the stipulated time mentioned

in the aforesaid order. On an application filed for extension of time

to deposit the amount, as directed by the High Court on 4th May,

2006, the High Court directed an inquiry to be initiated whether one

Smt. Durga, a maid servant of the decree holder had received a

bank draft of Rs.10,000/- on behalf of the decree holder tendered

by the respondent and that whether she was retaining the same in

view of the fact that the application it was alleged that the order of

the High Court dated 4th of May, 2006 was duly complied with as he

had already deposited the bank draft of Rs.10,000/- with the same

Smt. Durga, a maid servant of the decree holder. The High Court

directed the Executing Court to conduct an inquiry and examine the

witnesses and receive evidence to be adduced by the parties and

2 then to submit a report to it.

4. We have heard Mr. Ravindra Shrivastava, learned senior

counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-decree holder and Mr.

Rohit Arya, learned senior counsel for the respondent and have

also considered the conditional decree and the application for

extension of time and other materials on record. In our view, for the

purpose of executing the decree, whether money has been

deposited or not, it was not necessary to hold an inquiry whether in

fact Smt. Durga had received the bank draft or not because in the

conditional decree of the High Court, it was made clear that such

amount must be deposited in the trial court which was not done by

the respondent. In this view of the matter, we are of the view that

there is no reason why the Executing Court shall not proceed with

execution of the decree passed on 4th of May, 2006, and

accordingly, we direct the Executing Court to proceed with the

execution case passed on 4th of May, 2006. However, it would be

open to the Executing Court to proceed with the inquiry as directed

by the High Court.

5. With these observations and or modification, these appeals

are disposed of. There will be no order as to costs.

3 ................................J. [ TARUN CHATTERJEE ]

NEW DELHI: ...............................J. MAY 05, 2009 [ H.L. DATTU ]

4