SHYAM BABU Vs. SATISH CHANDRA SONI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for petitioner.

(2.) THIS writ petition has been filed for quashing the order passed by Judge, Small Causes Court dated 10.1.2008 as well as the order dated 27.10.2009.

(3.) I have considered the submissions made on behalf of parties and have perused the record. The findings recorded by court below are finding of fact, based on evidence and it is well settled in law that any deposit made under Section 30 of the Act No.13 of 1972 cannot be treated to be sufficient deposit after the service of notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. Admittedly, petitioner has not deposited the amount either on first date of hearing or under Section 20 Sub Clause 4 of the Act. Therefore, any deposit made by petitioner under Section 30 cannot be treated to be sufficient deposit. The findings recorded by court below is finding of fact, based on evidence, needs no interference by this Court.