PURUSOTTAM DAS AGRAWAL Vs. MOHANLAL KHETAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) With the consent of the parties, the matter is finally heard.

(2.) It is alleged that suit for mandatory injunction is pending before trial Court against the respondents and during the pendency of the Civil Suit the Misc. Petition was filed challenging the order dated 9.7.2018, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order 40 Rule 1 of CPC has been rejected. The application was filed for appointment of receiver for making compliance of directions issued by the learned trial Court vide order dated 2.2.2010 directing the respondent No.1 to deposit the rent of the disputed property in CCD till final disposal of the suit or until further orders of the Court with an observation that the same shall not be withdrawn by anyone. It is further alleged that the trial Court vide order dated 21.11.2017 has directed the respondent No. 3 to comply with the order dated 2.2.2010 as he has stepped into shoes of the respondent No.1 but since the rent was not deposited despite of specific directions of the learned trial Court an application under Order 40 Rule 1 of CPC was filed for appointment of receiver. The application was dismissed by learned trial Court and the aforesaid order was put to challenge before this Hon'ble High Court by filing a Misc. Petition being M.P. No.3660/2018 in the name of Purusottamdas Agrawal and Another Vs. Mohanlal Khetan & Others. Thus, the aforesaid writ petition was finally heard and decided by the this Hon'ble Court vide order dated 2.1.2019 and considering the facts and circumstances of the case the Hon'ble High Court has directed learned the trial Court to appoint a receiver for collection of rent from the respondent No.3 with a specific direction to the receiver to deposit the rent by 15 th of every month in the CCD and to produce the receipt of the same before the learned trial Court. The respondents No.3/respondent No.2 shall be liable to deposit the entire arrears the rent w.e.f. 15.10.2014 and the petition was allowed. Despite of specific directions issued by this Court the learned trial Court by misinterpreting the order passed by this Court, has passed the impugned order which is per se illegal, arbitrary and against the directions given by the Hon'ble Court in M.P. No.3660/2018. It is further alleged that no rent has been deposited, despite of the specific directions of this Court.

(3.) By way of amendment, the petitioner has brought on record the order passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (C) registered as 19672-19673/2019 which filed against the order dated 2.1.2019 passed in M.P. No.3660.2018 and the aforesaid SLP was dismissed vide order dated 23.8.2019. Thus, it is alleged that the order passed by this Hon'ble Court has attained finality and it is binding upon the parties to deposit the entire rent in pursuance to the directions issued by the Hon'ble High Court.