W.P. (C) Nos. 6727 and 6732 of 2009. Case: Dinesh Kumar Pathak and Anr. Vs Sri Trailokya Mishra. High Court of Orissa (India)
| Case Number | W.P. (C) Nos. 6727 and 6732 of 2009 |
| Judges | Sanju Panda, J. |
| Issue | Companies Act; Civil Procedure Code (CPC), 1908 - Section 151 - Order 6, Rule 17 - Order 39, Rules 1 and 2; Constitution of India - Article 227 |
| Citation | 110 (2010) CLT 310 |
| Judgement Date | May 11, 2010 |
| Court | High Court of Orissa (India) |
Judgment:
Sanju Panda, J.
-
Since these two writ applications arise out of C.S. No. 154 of 2009, both were heard together & are being disposed of by this common Judgment.
-
In both the writ applications, challenge has been made to the Order Dated 24.4.2009 passed by the Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bhubaneswar in Interim Application Nos. 197 & 199 of 2009 allowing applications filed by the Petitioner under Order 6, Rule 17, CPC for amendment.
-
To appreciate the contentions of the parties, the following facts of the case are necessary to be stated:
The Opp. Party as Plaintiff filed C.S. No. 154 of 2009 before the Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bhubaneswar for damage of Rs. 3,800 along with future damage; mandatory injunction by way of a direction to the Defendants to remove the iron flat, clamps & locks put on the entrance door of the Plaintiffs tenanted premises at Plot No. 101/7, Jan Path, Unit-Ill, Bhubaneswar & rewrite the wall sign boards of the Plaintiffs company; permanent injunction against the Defendants to evict the Plaintiff forcibly or illegally without taking recourse to the legal process; a decree in favour of the Plaintiff with cost of the suit & other relief as deemed just & proper. Along with the plaint, he filed I.A. No. 197 of 2009 under Order 39, Rules 1 & 2 read with Section 151, CPC for mandatory injunction. He also filed I.A. No. 199 of 2009 for ad interim mandatory injunction to restore the position of the tenanted premises located at Plot No. 101/7 as on 4.4.2009 by removing the iron flat & the locks put on the entrance door. In the said application, he specifically averred that the disputed premises was let out to him with effect from 1.3.1972 at a rent of Rs. 500 per month which was subsequently enhanced from time to time & lastly fixed at Rs. 2,000 per month. The rent was collected regularly till 31.3.2005. Thereafter, since they refused to accept the rent, the Plaintiff paid the same by check & it was regularly paid till filing of the suit.
-
While the matter stood thus, on 29.3.2009 the Defendants entered into the premises with seven to eight persons shouting in filthy & intimidating language, demanded differential rate at par with other neighbouring tenants from February, 2006, misbehaved the Plaintiff & his family members & threatened him to evict forcibly from the tenanted premises. The said matter was informed by the Plaintiff before the nearest police station. On 6.4.2009 at about...
To continue reading
Request your trial