Jharkhand High Court
Sunil Kumar Gupta vs Ganga Prasad on 13 March, 2013
Author: P.P. Bhatt
Bench: P.P. Bhatt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No. 6172 of 2011
Sunil Kumar Gupta ....Petitioner
Versus
Ganga Prasad ... Respondent
--------
Coram: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.P. BHATT
--------
For the Petitioner : M/s. Ramawatar Chaubey & M.K. Sinha, Advocates
For the Respondent : Mr. Priya Ranjan Bhagat, Advocate
(I.A. No. 3685 of 2012)
/13.3.2013: Present interlocutory application has been filed for modifying/ vacating the order dated 5.3.2012 i.e. the order by which proceeding of the court-below in Title (Eviction) Suit No. 9 of 2010 has been stayed.
With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the main petition is taken up for final hearing.
(W.P.(C) No. 6172 of 2011) It appears that the petitioner has challenged the order dated 5.8.2011 passed by the court-below under Section 15 of the BBC Act, whereby petitioner has been directed to deposit the rent at the rate of Rs.1800/- per month as well as order dated 22.9.2011, whereby the court- below passed an order to strike off the defence of the petitioner/ defendant.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as respondent and perused the impugned orders as well as other materials placed on record.
So far order dated 5.8.2011 is concerned, it transpires that the court-below after careful consideration of the facts and circumstances involved in the matter passed a detailed reasoned order and thereby directed the petitioner/ defendant to deposit the rent at the rate of Rs. 1800/- per month. So far the order with regard to deposit of the rent at the rate of Rs.1800/- per month is concerned, the learned court-below has taken care of to safeguard the interests of the petitioner/ defendant, as the respondent has not been given any permission for withdrawal of the amount deposited till disposal of the suit and therefore, the said order is not required to be disturbed, during pendency of the suit.
At the same point of time, so far order dated 22.9.2011 is concerned, petitioner/ defendant has been deprived of his valuable right to put up his defence and therefore, the said order is required to be quashed and set aside. Accordingly, petitioner/ defendant is directed to put forward his case by submitting his defence.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to and relied upon the decisions in the cases of Bishnu Kumar Agrawal versus Ganesh Prasad Gupta, reported in 2000(1) PLJR 469 and Janak Dulari Devi and another versus Kapildeo Rai and another, reported in 2012 (1) JLJR 197 (SC).
The principle laid down in the said judgments are required to be considered at the time of hearing of the suit.
Learned counsel for the petitioner requested that the amount deposited before the court-below may be invested by way of Fixed Deposit in the Nationalized Bank initially for a period of one year so that interest can be earned on the said amount.
Request made by the learned counsel for the petitioner appears to be reasonable as no party will be at loss if such order is passed. Accordingly, the amount is to be invested by way of fix deposit in a Nationalized Bank initially for a period of one year which can be renewed subsequently if the suit is not disposed of within year.
With the aforesaid observation and direction, this writ petition stands disposed of.
Consequently, I.A. No. 3685 of 2012 also stands disposed of.
.
(P.P. Bhatt, J.) S.B.