MAHENDER SHARMA Vs. BABU LAL AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appeal was dismissed in default on 14.3.2013 when no one was present. The application for restoration will be effectively under Order 9 Rule 4 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) and therefore no notice is required to the respondents before restoration. Application is allowed and the appeal is restored to its original number.

(2.) This appeal is filed under Order 43 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) impugning the order of the Court below dated 7.1.2013 by which the application filed by the appellant/plaintiff under Order 39 Rule 10 CPC for directions to respondent Nos.3 to 5-tenants to deposit the rent in the Court has been dismissed.

(3.) The case as set up by the appellant/plaintiff is that he purchased the suit property by means of a sale deed dated 25.6.2009 from the respondent No.1 herein, and who is defendant No.1 in the trial Court. This sale deed is a registered sale deed. The respondent No.1 is disputing the sale deed on the alleged ground that he is a victim of fraud perpetuated by the appellant/plaintiff and his signatures were obtained in undue influence, however, this is an aspect of which onus will be upon the respondent No.1/defendant No.1 and will have to be established during the course of the suit, however, for the present we are concerned with the position that admittedly the registered sale deed was executed in favour of the appellant/plaintiff. Once the admitted position is that there is a sale deed in favour of the appellant/plaintiff Order 39 Rule 10 CPC will come in and the respondent Nos.3 to 5/tenants have to deposit the admitted rent in the Court. Respondent Nos.3 to 5 are not represented in this Court in spite of service.