MANISHA LALWANI versus D.V. PAUL

Citation: [2009] 8 S.C.R. 889 · Decided: 05-05-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: TARUN CHATTERJEE · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 8 S.C.R. 889 
J 
MANISHA LALWANI 
A 
v. 
D.V. PAUL 
(Civil Appeal Nos.32~4-3235 of 2009) 
MAY 5, 2009 
B 
_, 
[TARUN CHATTERJEE AND H.L. DATTU, JJ.] 
( 
Rent Control - Conditional decree pa,ssed by High Court 
- Tenant directed to deposit Rs.10,0001- in trial court within 
4 months or else trial court directed to pass decree of eviction c 
- Application for extension of time to deposit the amount -
Disposed of, by High Court with direction to Executing Court 
to conduct inquiry as to whether maid servant of the decree 
holder had received a bank draft of Rs. 10, 0001 - on his behalf 
from the tenant - Held: For executing the decree, it was not 
D 
necessary to hold an inquiry whether in fact the maid-servant 
had received the bank draft or not because in the conditional 
decree of the High Court, it was made clear that such amount 
must be deposited in trial court which was not done by tenant 
- Hence, no reason for the Executing Court to not proceed 
E 
with execution of the decree - However, it would ;be open to 
~ 
the Executing Court to proceed with the inquiry as directed 
_, 
by High Court. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 
F 
3234-3235 of 2009. 
From the Judgment & Order dated 6.12.2007 of the High 
Court of Judicature of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in MCC 
No. 1876 of 2007 and order dated 7.1.2008 in I.A. No. 14800 
of 2007 
G 
Ravindra Shrivastava, Akshat, Shrivastava, P.P. Singh, 
lnderjeet Yadav for the Appellants. 
• 
Rohit Arya, Nitin Gaur and S.K. Sabharwal for the 
889 
H 
890 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 8 S.C.R. 
" 
A Respondents. 
< 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
TARlJN CHATTERJEE, J. 1. Leave granted. 
B 
2. These appeals are directed against an order dated 6th 
of December, 2007, passed by the High Court of Madhya 
Pradesh at Jabalpur in MCC No.1876 of 2007, by which the 
>. • 
application filed for extension of time fixed by the High Court 
while passing the judgment dated 4th of May, 2006, was 
c disposed of with certain directions. 
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and 
have examined the impugned order and other materials on 
record. While passing the conditional decree, the High Court 
D on 4th of May, 2006 directed "that the tenant shall deposit a 
sum of Rs.10,000/- [Rupees ten thousand] by way of 
compensation in the trial court within a period of four months 
from the date of this judgment, for being paid to the landlord. If 
the tenant fails to deposit the amount within the stipulated period 
E 
of four months, the trial court shall pass a decree for eviction 
of the tenant/respondent under Clause (M) of Sub-section (1) 
of Section 12 of the Act. If the tenant deposits the amount within 
the specified period, the plaintiff's suit shall stand dismissed." 
1 
The respondent-tenant had failed to deposit in the trial court the 
' 
amount as aforesaid within the stipulated time mentioned in the 
F aforesaid order. On an application filed for extension of time 
to deposit the amount, as directed by the High Court on 4th 
May, 2006, the High Court directed an inquiry to be initiated 
whether one Smt. Durga, a maid servant of the decree holder 
had received a bank draft of Rs.10,000/- on behalf of the decree 
G holder tendered by the respondent and that whether she was 
retaining the same in view of the fact that the application it was 
alleged that the order of the High Court dated 4th of May, 2006 
was duly complied with as he had already deposited the bank 
draft of Rs.10,000/- with the same Smt. Durga, a maid servant 
H of the decree holder. The High Court directed the Executing 
MANISHA LALWANI v. D.V. PAUL 
891 
[TARUN CHATIERJEE, J.] 
l 
Court to conduct an inquiry and examine the witnesses and A 
receive evidence to be adduced by the parties and then to 
submit a report to it. 
4. We have heard Mr. Ravindra Shrivastava, learned 
senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-decree B 
holder and Mr. Rohit Arya, learned senior counsel for the 
J, 
respondent and have also considered the conditional decree 
I 
and the application for extension of time and other materials 
on record. In our view, for the purpose of executing the decree, 
....-
whether money has been deposited or not, it was not necessary c 
to hold an inquiry whether in fact Smt. Durga had received the 
bank draft or not because in the conditional decree of the High 
Court, it was made clear that such amount must be deposited 
in the trial court which was not don

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.