W.P.No.4313/2010
Santosh Shukla & another Anoop Lokrash
26.7.2010
Shri S.D.Khan, counsel for petitioners.
Shri Avinash Zargar, counsel for respondent.
This petition is directed against an order dated 6.1.2010 by Ist
Civil Judge Class-I, Sagar in execution case no.6-A/2009, by which an
application filed by the petitioners seeking stay of execution
proceedings has been rejected.
It is submitted by Shri Khan that in fact no notice was served
on the petitioners in the civil suit no.6-A/2009, though the summons
were returned with endorsement that wife of petitioner no.1 Santosh
Shukla refused to accept the summon and thereafter ex-parte decree
was passed on 30.7.2009. Thereafter the petitioners moved an
application under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C., but it was dismissed in
default. Now an application for restoration of application under Order
9 Rule 13 C.P.C., is pending before the trial Court in which next date
of hearing is 20.8.2010. It is submitted that till the final decision of
proceedings under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C., the possession of
petitioners may be protected.
Shri Avinash Zargar, learned counsel for respondent
vehemently opposed the prayer and submitted that the suit was filed
under section 12(1)(a) & (c) of M.P.Accommodation Control Act, 1961
(hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’ for short) against the petitioners as
they were creating nuisance and also not paying rent. That four
criminal cases have been registered against the petitioners for
creating nuisance in the suit premises. Apart from this, the
petitioners herein have constructed a temple adjoining to the
tenanted premises.
Considering the fact that the application for restoration of an
application under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. is pending before the trial
Court and if the aforesaid proceedings are restored the trial court has
to decide the application filed by the petitioners under Order 9 Rule
W.P.No.4313/2010
Santosh Shukla & another Anoop Lokrash
13 C.P.C., and before the decision of aforesaid application if the
petitioners are dispossessed they may suffer irreparable loss, and
considering the peculiar facts of the case, in the interest of justice,
we dispose of this matter with following directions :-
1. The trial court – Ist Civil Judge Class-I, Sagar is directed to
decide the proceedings for restoration of application under Order 9
Rule 13 C.P.C. as M.J.C.No.1/10 expeditiously.
2. The respondent Anoop Lokrash is directed to cause
appearance before the trial court in the said proceedings on
20.8.2010. A copy of the said application is supplied to the counsel
for respondent in the Court by Shri S.D.Khan, who may file reply of
the application on or before the date. The trial Court shall decide the
aforesaid proceedings expeditiously as far as possible within a period
of thirty days from the aforesaid date. If the proceedings under
Order 9 Rule 13 CPC are restored, the trial court shall make an
endeavour to decide the aforesaid proceedings expeditiously as far as
possible within a period of thirty days from the date of restoration of
proceedings.
3. For a period of two months or till the decision of aforesaid both
proceedings, which ever is earlier it is directed that the petitioners
shall not be dispossessed from the suit premises in execution of civil
suit no.6-A/2008 by the trial Court, provided petitioners deposit all
the arrears of rent and costs incurred in the Court below within a
period of thirty days from today, if already not deposited and
thereafter continue to deposit the rent before the trial Court as
required under section 13(1) of the Act.
Considering the facts of the case, there shall be no order as to
costs.
(Krishn Kumar Lahoti) (Sanjay Yadav)
JUDGE JUDGE
M.