RAM MURTI Vs. SARLA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been directed against the judgment dated 25. 10. 1996 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Ambala. By this judgment, the learned lower appellate court has upheld the judgment dated 29. 1. 1991 by which the learned trial court had decreed the suit filed by the respondent plaintiff for mandatory injunction for directions to the appellant-defendant to hand over the vacant possession of the shop.

(2.) THIS appeal came up for hearing on 28. 2. 1997 and on that date Mr. R. P. S. Ahluwalia, Advocate who appeared on behalf of the appellant stated that the appellant was and is willing to deposit Rs. 5 lacs toward the arrear of rent and he will do so within two months. From the paper-book. I, however, find that this amount of Rs. 5 lacs was never deposited by the appellant and on the contrary the appellant filed an application under Section 151 CPC for withdrawing the statement dated 28. 2. 1997. In the application it has been stated that the statement made by the counsel was so irresponsible or erroneous that no such amount is involved in this case.

(3.) MR . Bhag Singh, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that the suit for mandatory injunction filed by the respondent-plaintiff was not maintainable and in the facts and circumstances of the case the plaintiff could file a suit for possession. This contention is, however, without any force in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sant Lal Jain v. Avtar Singh, A. I. R. 1985 S. C. 857. In that case it was held that the suit in fact was one for possession though couched in the form of suit for mandatory injunction. In the present case also it is the similar case as the suit in the present case is also in fact for possession though couched in the form of a suit for mandatory injunction.