SUNDER DAS Vs. USHA CHAUKADIWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MR . Sunder Das, the petitioner, is present before this Court as the learned members of the Bar are abstaining from work today.

(2.) THE petitioner has challenged the orders dated 20.3.2014 and 5.4.2014. By the former order the learned Addl. District Judge, Kekri, had dismissed the application under Order 41, Rule 5 CPC. By the latter order, he has dismissed the review petition filed by the petitioner.

(3.) THE petitioner has pleaded that the increase of mesne profit from Rs. 1000/ - to Rs. 3000/ - is too steep an increase. In fact, the rental value of the property in dispute is not Rs. 3000/ -. Secondly, while passing the impugned order, the learned judge has directed that Rs. 3000/ - should be paid from 19.9.2012 till present. However, on the previous occasions he was directed to pay Rs. 1000/ - as mesne profit, which he has being paying from 19.9.2012 till present. Therefore, he cannot be asked to pay Rs. 3000/ - from 19.9.2012 onwards. Hence, the order dated 20.3.2014 deserves to be interfered with. Lastly, that the order dated 5.4.2014 had been passed in a mechanical manner. In fact, considering the mistake made by the learned judge, learned judge ought to have reviewed the order dated 20.3.2014.