Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 684 (MP)

Purusottam Das Agrawal v. Mohanlal Khetan

2019-09-23

VISHAL MISHRA

body2019
JUDGMENT 1. The present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 15.2.2019 and 5.7.2019 passed by the trial Court, whereby the application under section 151 of CPC for compliance of the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court in M.P. No. 3660/2018 dated 2.1.2019 has been rejected. 2. It is alleged that suit for mandatory injunction is pending before trial Court against the respondents and during the pendency of the civil suit the misc. petition was filed challenging the order dated 9.7.2018, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order 40 rule 1 of CPC has been rejected. The application was filed for appointment of receiver for making compliance of directions issued by the learned trial Court vide order dated 2.2.2010 directing the respondent No. 1 to deposit the rent of the disputed property in CCD till final disposal of the suit or until further orders of the Court with an observation that the same shall not be withdrawn by anyone. It is further alleged that the trial Court vide order dated 21.11.2017 has directed the respondent No. 3 to comply with the order dated 2.2.2010 as he has stepped into shoes of the respondent No.1 but since the rent was not deposited despite of specific directions of the learned trial Court an application under Order 40 rule 1 of CPC was filed for appointment of receiver. The application was dismissed by learned trial Court and the aforesaid order was put to challenge before this Hon'ble High Court by filing a Misc. Petition being M.P. No. 3660/2018 in the name of Purusottamdas Agrawal and Another v. Mohanlal Khetan and others. Thus, the aforesaid writ petition was finally heard and decided by the this Hon'ble Court vide order dated 2.1.2019 and considering the facts and circumstances of the case the Hon'ble High Court has directed learned the trial Court to appoint a receiver for collection of rent from the respondent No. 3 with a specific direction to the receiver to deposit the rent by 15th of every month in the CCD and to produce the receipt of the same before the learned trial Court. The respondents No. 3/respondent No. 2 shall be liable to deposit the entire arrears the rent w.e.f. 15.10.2014 and the petition was allowed. The respondents No. 3/respondent No. 2 shall be liable to deposit the entire arrears the rent w.e.f. 15.10.2014 and the petition was allowed. Despite of specific directions issued by this Court the learned trial Court by misinterpreting the order passed by this Court, has passed the impugned order which is per se illegal, arbitrary and against the directions given by the Hon'ble Court in M.P. No. 3660/2018. It is further alleged that no rent has been deposited, despite of the specific directions of this Court. 3. By way of amendment, the petitioner has brought on record the order passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (C) registered as 19672-19673/2019 which filed against the order dated 2.1.2019 passed in M.P. No. 3660.2018 and the aforesaid SLP was dismissed vide order dated 23.8.2019. Thus, it is alleged that the order passed by this Hon'ble Court has attained finality and it is binding upon the parties to deposit the entire rent in pursuance to the directions issued by the Hon'ble High Court. 4. Per contra counsel appearing for the respondents No. 2 and 3 has supported the order impugned passed by the learned trial Court and has contended that the order passed by learned trial Court is just and proper and is in terms of the directions of the Hon'ble High Court passed in M.P. No. 3660/2018. It is further contended that in pursuance to order passed by the Court they have deposited the rent till date and produced the receipts dated 17.9.2019 amounting to Rs. 30,000/- and on 18.9.2019 amounting to Rs. 75,000/-. He has drawn attention of this Court to the order passed by Hon'ble High Court dated 2.1.2019 and has contended that the Hon'ble High Court has observed that the respondents No. 3/respondent No. 2 shall be liable to deposit the entire arrears of rent w.e.f. 15.10.2014 thus, he has argued that Hon'ble High Court has fixed the liability of respondent No. 2 or respondent No. 3 to deposit the entire rent, but has not specifically directed for depositing the aforesaid arrears of rent during the pendency of the civil suit, liability is still required to be ascertained. It is contended that the civil suit is at the stage of final arguments, if arrears of rent is not deposited then the proceedings of the trial Court cannot be stayed. It is contended that the civil suit is at the stage of final arguments, if arrears of rent is not deposited then the proceedings of the trial Court cannot be stayed. The arrears of rent can be recovered in subsequent proceedings. He has further contended that the petitioner for one or other reason is trying to linger on the matter since from the year 2010 and now it is almost a decade and civil suit could not be finalized. He has read over the relevant paragraph of the impugned order and has contended that the trial Court has rightly considered the direction given by this Court and has passed the impugned order. It is further contended that Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 2.1.2019 has issued directions for appointment of receiver which is complied with by the learned trial Court and receiver is being appointed and subsequent direction for collection of rent is to the receiver not to the respondents. Therefore, in such circumstances, the proceedings of the civil Court cannot be withheld specially in the circumstances when the civil suit is at the final hearing stage. He has further drawn attention of this Court to the various order-sheets of the trial Court which are being filed along with list of documents, since from the very beginning, and has particularly drawn attention of this Court to the order sheet dated 19.1.2011 passed in Writ Petition No. 997/2010, whereby the Hon'ble High Court has directed for completion of the civil proceedings within a period of six months. Therefore, he has prayed for dismissal of writ petition. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. From perusal of the record, it is seen that a civil suit was filed for seeking permanent injunction the civil suit was filed in the year 2009, a writ petition was filed by the respondent No.2 registered as W.P. No. 997/2010 dated 19.1.2011 and the writ petition was disposed of upholding the order passed by the learned trial Court with a direction to the learned trial Court to complete the proceedings of the civil suit within a period of six months. Thereafter, proceedings of the civil suit remain pending owing to one or other application filed by either parties. Thereafter, proceedings of the civil suit remain pending owing to one or other application filed by either parties. A writ petition was filed challenging the order dated 9.7.2018, whereby application filed by the petitioner under Order 40 rule 1 of CPC for appointment of a receiver for collection of rent was rejected. The writ petition was finally heard and decided vide order dated 2.1.2019 and the Hon'ble High Court has directed as under; “Consequently, the order dated 9.7.2018 passed by Fourth civil Judge, Class-I, Gwalior is hereby set aside. The application filed by the petitioners under Order 40 rule 1 of CPC is allowed. The trial Court is directed to appoint a receiver for collection of rent from the respondent No. 3, with a direction to the receiver to deposit the rent by 15th of every month in the CCD and to produce the receipt of the same before the trial Court. The respondent No. 3/respondent No. 2 shall be liable to deposit the entire arrears of rent w.e.f. 15.10.2014. 7. It is seen from the order passed in the writ petition that learned trial Court vide order dated 2.2.2010 has directed the respondent No.1 who was the original tenant to deposit the rent in CCD of the Court. The order dated 2.2.2010 was affirmed by the Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 19.1.2011 passed in W.P. No. 997/2010. On 15.10.2014 a fresh rent note was executed with the respondent No. 3 and he was inducted as a tenant. The matter again travelled up to this Court and the Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 21.11.2017 has observed as the respondent No. 3 stepped into shoes of the respondent No.1, therefore, the order dated 2.2.2010 shall apply mutatis mutandis to the respondent No. 3 and he was directed to deposit the rent in CCD. The order dated 21.11.2017 has attained finality but when the directions given this Hon'ble Court were not complied with an application for appointment of receiver was filed which was rejected by the learned trial Court which was put to challenge before this Hon'ble Court in M.P. No. 3660/2018 and the same was finally decided vide order dated 2.1.2019. The order dated 2.1.2019 has attained finality up to Hon'ble Supreme Court. 8. The order dated 2.1.2019 has attained finality up to Hon'ble Supreme Court. 8. The Hon'ble High Court vide its order dated 2.1.2019 has considered the entire matter in detail and has passed the order dated 2.1.2019 and has held that respondent No. 3/respondent No. 2 shall be held liable to deposit the entire arrears of rent w.e.f. 15.10.2014. In pursuance to the aforesaid order, the learned trial Court has appointed the receiver, but no rent was deposited. During the pendency of this petition the part rent has been deposited before the learned trial Court on 17.9.2019 amounting to Rs.30,000/- and on 18.9.2019 and amounting to Rs.75,000/- but no arrears of rent has been deposited. Learned counsel for the petitioner has brought to the notice of this Court the order-sheets of the learned trial and has tried to establish the fact that the petitioner is lingering on the matter before the trial Court. The civil suit is at the stage of final arguments and due to the act of the petitioner final arguments could not be addressed. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the entire order-sheets of the case are not being filed by the respondents. He has brought to the notice of this Court to the fact that after order-sheet dated 20.2.2013 no order-sheets up to 5.12.2018 are being filed by the respondents. It is further seen that order regarding deposition of rent was passed far back in the year 2010 itself and further in the year 2011 vide order dated 19.1.2011 passed in W.P. No. 997/2010 but despite of the same respondents have not followed the directions given by this Hon’ble Court and has not deposited the rent in such circumstances, Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 2.1.2019 passed in M.P. No.3660/2018 has passed a detailed order and the aforesaid order has been affirmed in SLP by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Thus, in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of case and looking to the conduct of the respondents that they are not complying with the directions given by this Court since from the year 2010 onwards and have not deposited the rent. On one hand a stand has been taken by the respondents that petitioner is lingering on the case and on the other hand they themselves are not complying with the directions given by the Courts regarding depositing the rent. On one hand a stand has been taken by the respondents that petitioner is lingering on the case and on the other hand they themselves are not complying with the directions given by the Courts regarding depositing the rent. Respondents cannot be permitted to blow both hot and cold at same time. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to comply with the order dated 2.1.2019 passed in M.P. No.3660/2018 in letter and spirit and deposit the entire arrears of rent as directed by this Hon’ble Court and if the aforesaid order passed by this Court is complied with, the learned trial Court is directed to finally proceed in the matter and decide the same finally within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid observations.