AMAR SINGH Vs. JAI SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision is directed against the order of the Additional District Judge. Delhi dated 2nd December 1985 passed on an application filed by the plaintiff under Order 40, Rule 1 read with Section 151 C.P.C. The Additional District Judge has directed the petitioner to deposit the rent in court in future and continue to do so till the disposal of the suit.

(2.) It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the claim of the plaintiffs in the main suit for partition and rendition of accounts is only to the extent of 1/6th of his share in respect of land measuring 316 sq. yards comprised in Khasra No. 169 min situated in village Nangal Rai, Delhi Cantt. but the Additional District Judge has directed the petitioner to deposit the whole of the rent received by him. Moreover, it is contended that the application is not yet disposed of and is still pending before the trial court. Learned counsel states that if he is directed to deposit the whole of the amount of rent received, which is not even the claim of the plaintiff, irreparable hardship would be caused to the petitioner.

(3.) On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs submitted that it has been claimed by the plaintiffs in the suit that the petitioner herein has only 1/5th share in the disputed property and, therefore, in any event he is not entitled to keep whole of the rent.