Order 15-A of CPC provides for striking off defence in a suit filed by the lessor. Rule 2 thereof requires the Civil Court to serve a notice on the defendant to show-cause as to why the defence should not be struck off, and then the Court shall consider any such cause, if shown in order to decide as to whether the defendant should be relieved of an order striking off the defence put up by him. The order passed on 02.07.2015 by the Court in I.A.No.116 of 2014 is very clear. For the period from December 2011 up to end of June 2015 for nearly 43 months period, the defendant was directed to deposit the admitted rent @ Rs.3,500/- per month and 30 days time was granted by the Court for that purpose. Therefore, the petitioner herein ought to have deposited the entire arrears of rent within the time so stipulated by the Court. That he has not done and on the other hand, he has drawn a cheque of Rs.75,000/- on 01.09.2015 and offered to the plaintiff. Rs.75,000/- does not answer or satisfy the quantum of arrears payable for the entire 43 months period, which works out to Rs.1,50,500/-. This apart, there is a finding of fact recorded now that the petitioner herein has also failed to comply with the other obligation to deposit the admitted rent of Rs.3,500/- before 10th of every month. Hence, for the default committed by the petitioner herein to live up and comply with the stipulations contained in I.A., the Court below rightly struck off the defence set up by him as provided for under Order 15-A (2) of CPC. I, therefore, do not find any good reason for interference in exercise of jurisdiction vested in the Court below.

THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO            

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.161 of 2016  

26-02-2016

Sri K.Bhaskar ReddyPetitioner  

Smt. K.Anasuya  Respondent  

Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri N.Harinath

Counsel for the Respondent :---                
                               
<Gist:

>Head Note:

? Citations:

THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO            

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.161 of 2016  
ORDER:
      This revision is preferred against an order passed on
15.12.2015 in I.A.No.587 of 2015 in O.S.No.403 of 2011.
      The petitioner herein is the defendant in the suit.  The
respondent/plaintiff moved I.A.No.587/2015 under Order 15-A (2)
of CPC praying the Court to strike off the defence of the defendant
on the premises that the defendant in the suit was directed by the
Court on 02.07.2015 by an order passed in I.A.No.116 of 2014 to
deposit the arrears of rent from the date of filing the suit i.e., from
December 2011 to June 2015 @ Rs.3,500/- per month, which is
the admitted rent.  In I.A.No.116 of 2014, the Court also directed
the petitioner herein to deposit the monthly rent before 10th of
every month until disposal of the suit.  Both these directions
issued by the Court in I.A.No.116/2014 dated 02.07.2015 have not
been complied with by the petitioner.  On the other hand, the
petitioner herein offered a cheque drawn in a sum of Rs.75,000/-
in favour of the plaintiff on 01.09.2015 and he offered another
cheque in a sum of Rs.86,000/- on the next date of adjournment,
which she refused to receive.  It was also pointed to the Court that
rents have not been deposited into the Court as per the order
dated 02.07.2015 before 10th of every month.  In view of the default
committed by the petitioner herein in complying with the order
dated 02.07.2015 passed in I.A.No.116 of 2014, the present
I.A.No.587 of 2015 is allowed and the defence of the petitioner
herein has been ordered to be struck off.
      Order 15-A of CPC provides for striking off defence in a suit
filed by the lessor.  Rule 2 thereof requires the Civil Court to serve
a notice on the defendant to show-cause as to why the defence
should not be struck off, and then the Court shall consider any
such cause, if shown in order to decide as to whether the
defendant should be relieved of an order striking off the defence
put up by him.
      In the instant case duly following the said procedure, the
present I.A.No.587 of 2015 has been ordered by the Court.
      Sri Avinash, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
learned counsel for the petitioner herein would submit that the
petitioner has drawn a memo trying to explain as to how he has
complied with the Court order, but the said memo was not acted
upon.
      The order passed on 02.07.2015 by the Court in I.A.No.116
of 2014 is very clear. For the period from December 2011 up to end
of June 2015 for nearly 43 months period, the defendant was
directed to deposit the admitted rent @ Rs.3,500/- per month and
30 days time was granted by the Court for that purpose.
Therefore, the petitioner herein ought to have deposited the entire
arrears of rent within the time so stipulated by the Court.  That he
has not done and on the other hand, he has drawn a cheque of
Rs.75,000/- on 01.09.2015 and offered to the plaintiff.
Rs.75,000/- does not answer or satisfy the quantum of arrears
payable for the entire 43 months period, which works out to
Rs.1,50,500/-.  This apart, there is a finding of fact recorded now
that the petitioner herein has also failed to comply with the other
obligation to deposit the admitted rent of Rs.3,500/- before 10th of
every month.  Hence, for the default committed by the petitioner
herein to live up and comply with the stipulations contained in
I.A., the Court below rightly struck off the defence set up by him as
provided for under Order 15-A (2) of CPC.  I, therefore, do not find
any good reason for interference in exercise of jurisdiction vested
in the Court below.
      Accordingly, the civil revision petition is dismissed.
      Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any shall stand
dismissed.  No costs.

_______________________________________      
JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO          
26.02.2016

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) reads as follows: “For Specific performance of a contract: Three years The date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.”= the apex Court in Ahmmadsahb Abdul Mila vs. Bibijan[1], wherein it was held that the date fixed for the performance of the contract should be a specified date in the calendar, and submitted that since no specified date in the calendar for performance of the contract is mentioned in the agreement of sale, the second limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act is applicable. ; whether the suit is barred by limitation or not becomes a tribal issue and when there is a tribal issue, the lower Court ought not to have rejected the plaint at the threshold. In view of the same, order, dated 27-01-2012, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, (FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, is, hereby, set aside. The Appeal is allowed accordingly.

Or.18, rule 17 and sec.151 C.P.C - petition filed for reopen and examination of the executant of Ex.A1 the sale deed to fill up the lacuna in evidence pointed out at the time of arguments not maintainable = Shaik Gousiya Begum. ..Petitioner Shaik Hussan and others.... Respondents = Published in http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/qrydisp.aspx?filename=10515

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. plaintiff has to prove his title and possession how he came into possession prima faice , in the absence of the same, not entitled for interim injunction = The questions as to whether the lease deed was properly stamped and whether the stamp paper on which it was typed can be said to have been procured through proper source, need to be dealt with at the stage of trial.; The suit filed by the 1st respondent, is the one for injunction simplicitor in respect of an item of immovable property. He has also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Basically, it was for the 1st respondent to establish that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property and that he derived the same through lawful means, particularly when he did not contend that he encroached upon the property.= assumptions of facts against to the contents of crucial third party by misreading the same- it is just un-understandable as to how the trial Court gathered the impression that Anuradha stated that there was a meeting of Board of Directors, where it was decided to lease the property to the appellants. - the trial Court itself was not clear as to whether the appellant is the lessee or a Manager or is working under any other arrangement. - The important findings that have a bearing upon the valuable rights of the parties cannot be based upon such uncertain and unverified facts. One of the cardinal principles in the matter of examining the applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is that a party claiming that relief must come to the Court with clean hands. Prima facie, we find that there are no bona fides, much less consistency on the part of the 1st respondent, in his effort to get the order of temporary injunction. The trial Court has misread the evidence and misinterpreted the facts borne out by the record.