Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
MCA/1204/2010 2/ 4 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
MISC.CIVIL
APPLICATION - FOR EXTENTION OF TIME No. 1204 of 2010
In
CIVIL
REVISION APPLICATION No. 287 of 2009
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
=========================================
1
Whether
Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2
To
be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3
Whether
their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
4
Whether
this case involves a substantial question of law as to the
interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order
made thereunder ?
5
Whether
it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
=========================================
PARVATIBEN
VASANTBHAI SONIGARA - Applicant(s)
Versus
RUPABEN
WD/O SHANKERLAL MEGHRAJ JAIN & 2 - Opponent(s)
=========================================
Appearance :
MR
MA PAREKH for
Applicant(s) : 1,
MR JV MEHTA for Opponent(s) : 1,
None for
Opponent(s) : 2 - 3.
=========================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
Date
: 14/05/2010
ORAL
JUDGMENT
1. Present
Application has been submitted by the applicant herein original
defendant to quash and set aside order passed by the learned
Principal District Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) passed in Misc. Civil
Application No.55 of 2009 below Exh.12 and to direct learned
Principal District Judge to extend the time limit to deposit the
arrears of rent.
2. At
the outset it is required to be noted that petitioner herein
original defendant preferred Civil Revision Application No.287 of
2009 before this Court challenging the order dated 26.08.2009 passed
by the learned Principal District Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) in
Misc.Civil Application No.55 of 2009 in dismissing the said
application having been abated. That this Court vide judgment and
order dated 30.12.2009 allowed the said Revision Application by
quashing and setting aside the impugned order passed by the learned
Appellate Court in Misc. Civil Application No.55 of 2009 and directed
the Appellate Court to decide and dispose of the appeal afresh in
accordance with law and on merits. At that time it was submitted on
behalf of the respondent heirs of original plaintiff that huge
amount of Rs.95,000/- was due and payable towards arrears of rent and
the petitioner has paid only Rs.5,000/-. It was requested to direct
the petitioner to deposit / pay arrears of rent and considering the
Undertaking submitted by the learned Advocate for the petitioner that
she will deposit an amount of Rs.95,000/- towards arrears of rent of
suit premises by making part payment of Rs.50,000/- within a period
of two months from 30.12.2009 and remaining amount in installment of
Rs.5,000/- every month before the learned Appellate Court and shall
pay regular monthly rent as and when due and payable, this Court
allowed the said Revision Application vide order dated 30.12.2009 by
issuing following directions in para -9 :-
9. For
the reasons stated hereinabove, the present Civil Revision
Application is allowed. The impugned order passed by learned District
Court, Ahmedabad (Rural) dated 26/08/2009 passed in Misc.Civil
Application No.55 of 2009 is hereby quashed and set aside and the
petitioner is granted two months time to pay the Court fees, as
required to be paid in the Appeal challenging the judgement and
decree passed by learned Principal Civil Judge (J.D.), Ahmedabad
dated 21/01/2008 in Regular Civil Suit No.735 of 2003 and on payment
of Court fees, learned Principal District Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural)
i.e Appellate Court is hereby directed to consider the Appeal
preferred by the petitioner against the aforesaid judgement and order
passed in Regular Civil Suit No.735 of 2003 on merits. In the
meantime, the petitioner is directed to act as per undertaking filed
before this Court dated 30/12/2009 and shall make part payment of
Rs.50,000/- towards arrears of rent before learned District Court,
Ahmedabad (Rural) within a period of two months from today and
remaining amount towards arrears of rent, she shall deposit with the
Appellate Court by monthly installment of Rs.5,000/- and shall
continue to pay monthly rent as and when due and payable. On such
deposit, it will be open for the respondent to withdraw the same
without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the respective
parties and subject to the ultimate outcome of the appeal before
learned District Court, Ahmedabad (Rural). Till the Appeal is
decided, there shall be stay of further implementation and operation
of the judgement and decree dated 21/01/2008 passed by learned
Principal Civil Judge (J.D.), Ahmedabad (Rural) in Regular Civil Suit
No.735 of 2003.
Rule
is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.
3. It
appears that despite aforesaid Undertaking and order passed by this
Court, applicant herein did not deposit arrears of rent and instead
submitted application before the District Court to extend time to pay
arrears of rent as directed by this Court (though said application
was not maintainable before the District Court as order to pay
arrears of rent was passed by this Court) and during the pendency of
said application applicant herein has preferred present application
before this Court to direct learned Principal District Judge to
extend time limit to deposit arrears of rent.
4. Having
heard learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties and
considering the fact that despite Undertaking and order passed by
this Court, applicant herein has not deposited arrears of rent which
is due and payable since many years and even conduct on the part of
the applicant to approach District Court to extend time (though such
application before the District Court was not maintainable as order
to deposit arrears of rent was passed by this Court), present
application deserves to be dismissed. It cannot be said that learned
Principal District Judge has committed any error in not extending
time to deposit arrears of rent. On the contrary, if learned
Principal District Judge would have granted extension, same would
have been illegal and without jurisdiction as District Court has no
jurisdiction to extend time limit to pay / deposit arrears of rent
which was directed to be deposited as per order passed by this Court.
5. In
view of above, there is no substance in present application which
deserves to be dismissed and accordingly it is dismissed.
[M.R.Shah,J.]
satish
Top