SWASTIK TENT SERVICES Vs. HRIDHAAN ORCHARD COUNTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of the instant revision-petition, the petitioners-defendants No.1 & 2 (here-in-after to be referred as 'defendants No.1 & 2') have laid challenge to the order dtd. 16/2/2023 (Annexure P-9) passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Kharar (for short 'the trial Court') in Civil Suit No.33 of 2021, whereby the application (Annexure P-7), as moved by respondent No.1-plaintiff Firm (here-in-after to be referred as 'the plaintiff') under Order XV Rule 5 CPC with a prayer to strike-off their (defendants No.1 & 2's) defence on account of non-payment of the lease money, electricity dues and the STP charges etc, has been allowed and they have been directed to make the payment of an amount of Rs.1,14,83,922.00on these counts.

(2.) Shorn and short of unnecessary details, the facts culminating in the filing of the present revision-petition, are that the plaintiff has filed the afore-referred Civil Suit against the defendants for seeking a decree for possession of the suit property and also for the recovery of the amount of Rs.96,64,597.00, consisting of the arrears of lease money, mesne profits, electricity dues and other charges, with a further prayer for the grant of relief of permanent injunction to restrain them (defendants) from removing the construction raised in the said property, while averring that it (plaintiff) had leased out the suit property to the defendants vide lease-deed Annexure P-1 and the above-said amount has become due to it from them but they have failed to pay the same despite the service of notice upon them for this purpose. The defendants filed their written statement controverting the claim of the plaintiff therein, on the grounds that the plaintiff itself had violated the terms and conditions of the lease deed and had also not handed over the physical possession of the suit property to them. Then, the plaintiff moved the afore-mentioned application with the prayer to strike-off the right of the defendants to defend in the said Suit, which has been allowed vide the impugned order.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners-defendants No.1 and 2 in the instant revision petition, at the preliminary stage and have also perused the file carefully.