Punjab-Haryana High Court
Vipin Handa vs Unknown on 10 May, 2012
Author: Rajesh Bindal
Bench: Rajesh Bindal
Civil Revision No. 2848 of 2012 [1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Revision No. 2848 of 2012 (O&M)
Date of decision: 10.5.2012
Vipin Handa
.. Petitioner
v.
Subhash Chander
.. Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL
Present: Mr. Sumeet Goel, Advocate for the petitioner.
...
Rajesh Bindal J.
Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 27.4.2012, passed by the learned court below to the extent where as an interim measure, it has been directed that the petitioner shall deposit ` 72,000/- with the lower court within 15 days and further continue to deposit ` 2,000/- per month as mesne profits for the property in possession of the petitioner.
It is a case in which the suit filed by the respondent was decreed. The petitioner was directed to pay ` 72,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum and further ` 2,000/- per month as mesne profits from 22.7.2008.
After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any merit in the present petition. The petitioner is in possession of the property to which the claim of the respondent is that he is the owner and the petitioner was a licensee. Whereas the case set up by the petitioner was that in fact he as well as the respondent are co-owners of the property in dispute. The suit filed by the respondent was decreed by the trial court. In appeal filed by the petitioner, merely ` 72,000/- have been directed to be deposited with the court and further mesne profits of ` 2,000/- per month regularly. It Civil Revision No. 2848 of 2012 [2] has further been directed that the amount shall not be disbursed to the respondent till the decision of appeal. The amount being quite meager, this court would not like to interfere with the impugned order.
Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. However, it is clarified that vide order dated 3.6.2011 passed in Civil Revision No. 7407 of 2010--Jyoti Burmi @ Jyoti Sharda v. Anusandeep Burmi, this court had already directed that any amount deposited in the court in any case has to be immediately deposited with the bank so that it can carry interest. The learned court below has not taken care of the directions issued by this court. Let the needful be done in terms of the said order.
( Rajesh Bindal ) Judge 10.5.2012 mk