Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1771 (RAJ)

Mali Ram v. Kushal Chand

2013-10-03

ALOK SHARMA

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. - The matter comes up on an application filed by the applicant under section 148 CPC for extension/enlargement of time to deposit the mesne profit for the month of December 2012 and January 2013 which have already been deposited. 2. Counsel for the applicant submitted that on 25.4.2006 the Court while staying the operation of the judgment and decree of the courts below made it conditional on the payment of mesne profits month to month to be paid by 15th of the month following. It was also observed that in the event of the defendant appellant failing to pay the mesne profits as directed for two consecutive months, the respondent plaintiff would be entitled to execute the decree of eviction. 3. It has been submitted that during the period November 2012 to March 2013 the appellant Raj Kumar and his wife both remained seriously ill. Medical certificates have been annexed in support of the application as Annex. 1, 2 and 3. Counsel submitted that due to the serious illness aforesaid the mesne profits of the Month of November 2012 required to be deposited by 15.12.2012, could be deposited on 18.1.2013; for the Month of December 2012 the mesne profits required to be deposited by 15.1.2013, could be deposited on 5.2.2013; for the Month of January 2013 mesne profits required to be paid by 15.2.2013, were paid on 2.3.2013 and for the month of February 2013, required to be paid by 15th of March, could be deposited on 29.3.2013. It has been submitted that prior to the month in issue and subsequently mesne profits had been deposited as per the directions of this Court issued on 25.4.2006. It has been submitted that however as the defendant appellant is technically in the cross-hairs of the directions of this Court issued on 25.4.2006 he may be liable do be evicted as two consecutive months default, now rectified, can yet be found. Counsel has submitted that the only intention of this Court in its order dated 25.4.2006 was to ensure that the mesne profits were paid- as they have been. He prayed that in this view of the matter the delay in deposit of mesne profits for the Months in issue be condoned and the time of deposit therefor be extended till the date of the actual deposits. He prayed that in this view of the matter the delay in deposit of mesne profits for the Months in issue be condoned and the time of deposit therefor be extended till the date of the actual deposits. Counsel submitted that in the event the court were to literally interpret the order dated 25.4.2006 passed by this Court, the applicant would suffer irreparable loss and the appeal admitted on substantial questions of law after hearing the parties would be rendered infructuous with the applicant being evicted in pursuance of the execution of the judgment and decree passed by the courts below. 4. Mr. J.P. Goyal, Sr. Advocate has seriously opposed the application for extension of time and condonation of delay in deposit of the mesne profits for the months detailed here-in-above. He submitted that the applicant is on the face of it admittedly in breach of the conditions of which the judgment and decree of the courts below were stayed. The defendant appellant must suffer the consequences for the lethargy. Counsel has submitted that the direction for deposit of mesne profits under the order dated 25.4.2006 passed by this Court partakes the character of direction for payment of provisional rent under section 13(3) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter 'the Act of 1950') and this Court would have no power to extend the time for deposit of mesne profits as earlier directed. 5. Heard the counsel for the parties. In my considered opinion, the submission of the counsel for the non-applicant respondent plaintiff equating mesne profits with provisional rent under section 13(3) of the Act of 1950 is jurisprudentially and conceptually erroneous. The two are entirely different concepts and cannot be confused with each other. This Court has the power under section 148 CPC to extend time in the interest of justice for compliance with any of its direction. Evidentially no injustice would be occasioned to the opposite party by condoning the short delay in the deposit of mesne profits. 6. Consequently, I am inclined to allow the application and extend the time for deposit of the mesne profits for the Months of December 2012 and January 2013 upto the date of their deposit. 7. The application stands disposed of accordingly.Application Disposed of as above. *******