Allahabad High Court High Court

Nityananda Sharma vs Smt. Sabra Begum on 23 June, 2010

Allahabad High Court
Nityananda Sharma vs Smt. Sabra Begum on 23 June, 2010
Court No. - 38

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 36261 of 2010

Petitioner :- Nityananda Sharma
Respondent :- Smt. Sabra Begum
Petitioner Counsel :- Anup Upadhyay,Shashi Kant Shukla
Respondent Counsel :- Madhav Jain

Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal,J.

Small Cause Suit no. 109 of 2000 Smt Sabira Begum Vs. Sri Bhagwan Garg
was decreed on 30.10.2009. In revision preferred by the petitioner against the
said decree, the operation of the decree was stayed provided the petitioner
deposits the entire amount as decreed in respect to the shop in his possession
within 15 days. According to the petitioner he has deposited the amount as
decreed within the time stipulated. However, the executing court vide order
dated 5.6.2010 ordered for the issuance of Dakhlparvana with the finding that
the entire amount decreed has not been deposited. The petitioner’s revision
against the said order has also been dismissed.

The submission of Sri S.K. Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner is that
the petitioner has deposited the entire amount as decreed in respect to the shop
in his possession and the executing court without apportioning the decretal
amount amongst the various tenants simply for the reason that the entire
amount has not been deposited and ordered for the issuance of
Dakhalparvana.

On the other hand Sri Madhav jain appearing for the respondents states that
though the petitioner has deposited the rental part of the decree but has not
deposited the damages which has been awarded.

In view of the above respective submission of the parties the matter require
some consideration.

As agreed list on 7.7.2010.

Learned counsel for the petitioner under takes to deposit even the damages
part of the decree so far as it relates to the shop in his possession or
proportionate to the damages of his share by the next date and furnish prove
of the same before this court.

Till the next date of listing the petitioner shall not be dis-possessed from the
shop in dispute.

It is made clear that this order come in way if the revisional court in deciding
revision no. 3 of 2010.

Order Date :- 23.6.2010
R.C.