Pradyuman Jee vs Special/Addl. District Judge And Ors. on 2 April, 2008
6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that since there was a dispute as to who was the landlord, the provisions of Order XV Rule 5 CPC will not be attracted because in such a case the defendant does not admit that there was any amount due to him and in support of his contention he has placed reliance upon the decisions of this Court in Jayant Kumar Chakraborty v. Xth Additional District Judge Varanasi and Ors. 2004 (1) AWC 498; Chhedi Ram (D) and Anr. v. Om Prakash Srivastava 2003 (2) AWC 1612 and Kunwar Baldevji v. Xith Additional District Judge Bulandshahr and Ors. 2003 (3) AWC 2504. He further submitted that the deposit had been made under Section 30(1) of the Act and the said amount could have been adjusted towards the deposits to be made under Order XV Rule 5 CPC.