Judgment:
C.R.No.7239 o”
1. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R.No.7239 of 2011 Date of decision :
12. 09.2013 Ram Pal ....Petitioner V/s Ishwar Chand & ors....Respondents BEFORE : HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr.Roopak Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.Amit Kumar Jain, Advocate for respondents No.1 & 2.
RAJAN GUPTA J.
(ORAL) Present revision petition is directed against the order passed by Civil Judge (Jr.
Division).Safidon whereby application filed by landlord under Order 15 Rule 5 CPC has been allowed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the order.
According to him, trial court had gravely erred in allowing the application for striking off defence of the petitioner.
He submits that petitioner had deposited an amount of `3.00 lacs as security.
Trial court did not take this fact into consideration before invoking Order15 Rule 5 CPC.
Thus, impugned order deserves to be set- aside.
Learned counsel appearing for respondents No.1 & 2 has opposed the plea.
According to him, impugned order is Kumar Ajay sustainable in law.
An opportunity has been granted to the 2013.09.13 16:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document C.R.No.7239 o”
2. petitioner to deposit arrears of rent @ `8500/- p.m.since 01.05.2007 failing which his defence would be struck off.
He further contends that there is no evidence to support the plea that petitioner paid `3.00 lacs as security to the plaintiffs.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and given careful though to the facts of the case.
Respondents-landlords instituted a suit for possession of shop measuring 18’ X 60’ situated on Railway Road, Safidon.
They also claimed rent/mesne profits @ `8500/- p.m for use and occupation of the premises.
During the pendency of proceedings, instant application under Order 15 Rule 5 CPC was moved before the trial court.
Application was contested by defendant-petitioner on the ground that entire amount of rent up to 30.04.2007 had been paid to the landlords and possession was delivered to them.
Landlords, thereafter, undertook to refund the security amount of `3.00 lacs.
After considering the contentions, trial court came to the conclusion that there was no evidence to show that amount of `3.00 lacs had been paid by the petitioner to landlords.
It, thus, invoked Order 15 Rule 5 CPC.
However, one opportunity was granted to the petitioner to deposit arrears of rent @ `8500/- p.m.with effect from 01.05.2007, failing which defence of the petitioner would be struck off.
Said order has been challenged on the ground that same is unsustainable.
I am not convinced with this plea raised before this court.
There is no material on record to show that petitioner paid any rent to the landlords since 01.05.2007.
The plea that security amount of `3.00 lacs was paid to the landlords is Kumar Ajay 2013.09.13 16:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document C.R.No.7239 o”
3. also not supported by any evidence.
Under the circumstances, trial court was left with no option but to pass the impugned order under Order 15 Rule 5 CPC.
Revision petition is without any merit and is hereby dismissed.
September 12, 2013 (RAJAN GUPTA) Ajay JUDGE Kumar Ajay 2013.09.13 16:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document