Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
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
J U D G M E N T
TARUN CHATTERJEE, J.
1. Leave granted.
th
2. These appeals are directed against an order dated 6 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
th
judgment dated 4 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
th
passing the conditional decree, the High Court on 4 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
th
to deposit the amount, as directed by the High Court on 4 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
th
the High Court dated 4 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
th
execution of the decree passed on 4 of May, 2006, and
accordingly, we direct the Executing Court to proceed with the
th
execution case passed on 4 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