PANKAJ PRAKASH Vs. SARITA PERIWAL AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CM No. 23184/2010

(2.) THIS is an application filed by the Appellant seeking clarification of the orders dated 06.08.2010 and 25.08.2010 passed by this Court. Necessary facts to be noticed for the disposal of this application are that two suits (suit for possession, recovery of Rs.4,36,008/ - and mandatory injunction and a suit for recovery of Rs.94,008/ -, for outstanding hire charges towards fittings and fixtures provided in the suit property), were instituted by the Respondents before the trial court. The Appellant contested both the suits and filed their written statements. Subsequent thereto Respondent moved applications under Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Both the applications were allowed and decree was passed which resulted in filing of two Regular First Appeals (RFA No. 490/2009 & RFA No. 492/2009). On 06.08.2010 both the appeals were taken up for hearing and on an understanding arrived at between counsel for the parties, the appeals were allowed and the matter was remanded back and directions were issued to the trial court to hear and dispose of the matter expeditiously. It was also agreed between the parties that an amount of Rs.6,00,000/ - which was deposited by the Appellant, be released in favour of the Respondent along with the interest accrued thereon, subject to the Respondent providing security to the satisfaction of the trial court. In view of the stand taken by the parties, the impugned judgment and decree dated 20.11.2009 was set aside.

(3.) COUNSEL for the Appellant submits that the order passed by the trial court on an application under Order 39 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure was assailed by the Appellant by filing an FAO (OS) No. 442/2007 and the High Court initially while granting stay directed 50% of the total amount to be deposited before trial court. Thereafter an amount of Rs.6,48,000/ - was deposited with the trial court in accordance with the directions of the High Court by the Appellant. The Respondents filed a contempt petition being Cont. Cas (C) No. 468/2008. Subsequently, High Court took a view that the exact amount of the amount due in terms of the order of the learned trial court in the application under Order 39 Rule 10 of the Code of the Code of Civil Procedure was not deposited by the Appellant, thus, the stay was vacated on 19.08.2009. The Appellant thereafter filed a review petition No. 341/2009 in FAO in which notice was issued. In the meanwhile the learned trial court decreed both the suits on the applications filed by Respondent under Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure. A decree for the same amount was passed as was directed on the application under Order 39 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In the appeals the judgment of the trial court passed under Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure was stayed by the High Court.