Punjab-Haryana High Court
Mamta Bread Khadi Gram Udhyog Mandal And ... vs Ram Pati Devi on 9 July, 1998
Equivalent citations: (1998)120PLR114
JUDGMENT G.C. Garg, J.
1. Plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for possession of the premises in question and for the recovery of rent at the rate of Rs. 300/- per month for the period 18.1.1986 to 31.7.1987 and for the recovery of mesne profits/damages for use and occupation for the period 1.8.1987 to 17.1.1989 at the rate of Rs. 700/- per month.
2. During the pendency of the suit and after the defendants had been served, plaintiff moved an application under Order 15 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which came into force w.e.f. 14.5.1991 praying that the defence of the defendants be struck of as they had failed to pay the admitted rent in view of the provisions of order 15 Rule 5 of the Code as notified vide notification dated 14.5.1991. Trial court on a consideration of the matter by order dated 26.2.1992, allowed the application and struck of the defence of the defendants as they had failed to pay or deposit or even offer to pay the arrears of admitted rent/mesne profits. Hence this revision at the instance of the defendants.
3. This petition was admitted to regular hearing and the order under revision was stayed ad-interim.
4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I find that the controversy raised in this petition is squarely covered by a judgment of this Court in Jai Bhagwan v. Chandra Mohan and Ors., (1995-3)111 P.L.R. 191, wherein it was held that Order 15, Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure as introduced by notification dated 10.5.1991 was prospective in nature and the said provisions cannot be applied to the suits pending on the date of publication of the said notification. Once that is so, the order under revision cannot be sustained as concededly in this case the suit was pending on the date of notification was issued. In that view of the matter, this revision is allowed and the order under revision in set aside. Since the operation of the order under revision was stayed by this Court, the parties through their counsel are directed to appear in the trial Court on 17.8.1998. From the order of the trial Court I find that the suit in this case was filed in January 1989 and the same has not yet been disposed of. The trial Court is therefore, directed to dispose of the suit within a period of six months after affording not more than two effective opportunities to each of the parties at short intervals for their respective evidence. The trial Court shall fix the dates for evidence of the parties keeping in view the interim orders passed by it in that behalf. No costs.