VINOD KUMAR MALHOTRA Vs. SUNIL AGGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 2.4.1998 passed bythe Additional District Judge in Suit No. 108/1987 disposing of the application filedby the plaintiff/respondent under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Theaforesaid suit was instituted by the respondent, as plaintiff, claiming for a decree fora sum of Rs. 4,73,882.00 being damages/arrears of rent in respect of a shop situatedat C-1, Temple Colony, Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar, Samaipur, Delhi which wasin use and occupation of the petitioner/defendant. Along with the aforesaid suit therespondent also filed an application under Section 151 Civil Procedure Code seeking a direction tothe petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 21,000.00 to the respondent, which according to the respondent is the admitted arrears of rent payable by the petitioner which admission came to be made by him in another suit, namely, Suit No. 242/1994 titled as Vimal Kumar Malhotra Vs. SunilAggarwal. The said application was disposed of by theAdditional District Judge directing the defendant/petitioner herein to pay the amountof Rs. 21,000.00 being admitted amount, subject to adjustment of any amount paid bythe defendant in Suit No.282/1984. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order thepresent petition was preferrer by the petitioner, on which I have heard the learnedcounsel appearing for the petitioner.

(2.) It was submitted by the counsel appearing for the petitioner that the amountclaimed under the aforesaid application under Section 151 Civil Procedure Code was an amountclaimed in another suit, namely, Suit No. 282/94 and, therefore, no order for paymentof the said amount could be made by the trial court in the suit and, therefore, theimpugned order is required to be set aside and quashed. It was submitted by thecounsel that the amount of Rs. 21,000.00 ordered to be paid by the trial court does notfail within the purview of the present suit in which the order is passed and, therefore,the said order is without jurisdiction. In order to appreciate the submission of thecounsel for the petitioner, I have perused the records. In the application filed by therespondent, it was stated that the petitioner/defendant, admitted on 22.2.96 pendingin the Court of the Civil Judge, that arrears due from him @ Rs. 1,000.00per monthworks out to Rs. 22.000.00 and that the defendant undertook to pay the said amountand clear the arrears in four equal instalments. It was stated that in terms of theaforesaid admission the total amount due and payable by the defendant to theplaintiff works out at Rs. 21,000.00 when possession was taken from the defendantafterfollowing due process of law.

(3.) As against the aforesaid application a reply was filed by the petitioner contending,inter alia, that the present suit is an independent suit having no concern with the orderpassed by the Civil Court in the other suit and, therefore, no order for deposit of theamount concerning admission in suit could be passed. Considering the aforesaidpleadings of the parties in the present suit and taking notice of the admission on thepart of the defendant/petitioner herein, the trial court came to the conclusion that inview of the aforesaid admission there could be a direction issued to the petitioner topay the aforesaid amount of Rs. 21,000.00subject to adjustment of any amount paid bythe defendant in Suit No. 282/94, which he thereby ordered.