Civil Revision Nos. 159 of 2015 and 107 of 2016. Case: Naresh Sharma Vs Shiv Ram Sharma. Himachal Pradesh High Court

Case NumberCivil Revision Nos. 159 of 2015 and 107 of 2016
Party NameNaresh Sharma Vs Shiv Ram Sharma
CounselFor Appellant: S.C. Sharma, Advocate and For Respondents: B.C. Verma, Advocate
JudgesSureshwar Thakur, J.
IssueCode of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) - Section 151
Judgement DateApril 01, 2017
CourtHimachal Pradesh High Court

Judgment:

Sureshwar Thakur, J.

  1. These petitions arise from an order pronounced in CMP No. 29-6 of 2015, comprising an application constituted by the defendant, before the learned trial Court, under the provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 CPC and from an order pronounced in CMA No. 30-6 of 2015, comprising an application constituted before the learned trial Court under the provisions of Order 8 Rule 6A CPC. Though both the applications aforesaid stood dismissed by separate order(s) pronounced thereupon by the learned trial Court, yet when facts besides attendant material are common to both thereupon the validity of the orders recorded upon both can stand adjudicated upon, under a common verdict.

  2. The impugned order recorded by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Theog, Himachal Pradesh upon CMA No. 29-6 of 2015, application whereof, comprises an application constituted before the learned trial Court by the defendant by his invoking the provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC whereupon he concerted to with the leave of the Court add apposite pleadings in his written statement, for succoring his propagation qua his counter claim embodied in CMA No. 30-6 of 2015. Before proceeding to dwell upon the efficacy of the pronouncements impugned hereat, it is imperative to allude to the factum of the suit constituted by the plaintiff before the learned trial Court echoing therein a relief qua a decree of damages, in a sum of Rs. 5,53,312/- comprising both the arrears of rent alongwith interest also the use and occupation charges qua the demised premises, hence standing pronounced upon the defendant. Qua the demised premises, a binding conclusive decree of eviction, of the defendant therefrom, arising from the plaintiff petitioner therein successfully establishing in his apposite rent petition constituted before the learned Rent Controller qua the defendant/petitioner herein falling into arrears of rent vis-a-vis the demised premises stood hence pronounced by the learned Rent Controller. The decree of eviction of the aggrieved defendant/petitioner herein from the demised premise, has come to be satisfactorily executed, comprised in the aggrieved defendant handing over vacant possession of the demised premises, to the plaintiff. The aggrieved defendant petitioner herein during the course of the apposite petition for his eviction from the demised premises, eviction whereof stood anchored upon his falling into arrears of rent, omitted to make any espousal therein qua the amount of arrears of rent claimed from him qua the demised premises, arrears whereof he evidently failed to liquidate qua the landlord, being ordered to be adjusted from the damages encumbered upon him arising from his standing constrained to sell machinery worth Rs. 4,34,759/-, sale whereof stood engendered by the plaintiff reneging from his promises, whereas the aforesaid stage comprised the apposite stage for resisting the petition for his eviction from the demised premises anchored upon the statutory ground(s) of his falling into arrears of rent, concomitantly his omission aforesaid to on the aforesaid anchorage hence resist his eviction from the demised premises on the ground of his falling into arrears of rent, thereupon visibly constitutes estoppel against the aggrieved defendant, to with utmost procrastination subsequent to his instituting a written statement to the suit of the plaintiff, hence belatedly seek through the applications constituted before the learned trial Court, its leave for incorporation in the apposite written statement qua...

To continue reading

Request your trial