The liability of the defendant towards the admitted rent justified the Trial Court's exercise of power under Section 94 CPC read with Section 151 CPC to pass the impugned order of attachment.

JUDGMENT

Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J. (Oral)

CM(M) 1334/2022

1. This petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugns the order dated 11.04.2022 passed by the ADJ-02, South District, Saket Courts, New Delhi (`Trial Court') in CS DJ 8586/16 titled as "Nand Kishore Bindra v. M/s Unimexx Builders And Developers Pvt. Ltd." whereby, the Trial Court in exercise of its power under Section 94 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure (`CPC') has attached a bank account No. 603620110000748, Bank of India, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi in the name of M/s Unimexx Builders Pvt. Ltd.

1.1. The Petitioner herein is the defendant and the Respondent herein is the plaintiff in the civil suit.

1.2. The civil suit has been filed for recovery of possession, mesne profits and maintenance charges. The relationship between the parties is admittedly of landlord and tenant.

1.3. The parties admit that the possession of the property bearing flat No. 301-A, Surya Mansion-1, Kaushlaya Park, Hauz Khas, New Delhi (`suit property') has been recovered by the Respondent on 15.10.2014 during the pendency of the suit proceedings.

1.4. It is the contention of the Respondent that the Petitioner herein defaulted in making payment of the agreed rent for the period 01.10.2012 till 15.10.2014; and in these circumstances, the Trial Court in an application filed by the Respondent under Order XXXIX Rule 10 read with Section 151 of CPC passed a detailed order dated 02.02.2019 directing the Petitioner herein to deposit the admitted amount of Rs.19,35,818/-, which became due and payable for the period of 01.10.2012 till 15.10.2014.

1.5. The Petitioner herein was directed vide order dated 02.02.2019 to deposit the said amount in the form of Fix Deposit Receipt (`FDR') in the name of the Trial Court within a period of 30 days. The said order has become final and has been accepted by both the parties.

1.6. The Petitioner herein defaulted in complying with the direction issued in the said order dated 02.02.2019 and therefore, the Trial Court by the impugned order has issued the order of attachment.

Arguments of the Petitioner

2. The learned counsel for the Petitioner states that the Petitioner herein failed to make a deposit of the FDR as directed by the Trial Court vide order dated 02.02.2019.

2.1. He states that, however, upon the default in complying with the order of the Trial Court dated 02.02.2019, the limited power, with the Trial Court was to strike off the defence of the Petitioner herein.

2.2. He states that however the Trial Court has committed an error inasmuch as the Trial Court by the impugned order dated 11.04.2022 has proceeded to attach the bank account of the Petitioner herein. He states that an amount to the extent of Rs.3,00,000/- approximately is lying with the said account.

2.3. He states that the effect of the impugned order is that the Trial Court has proceeded to execute its order dated 02.02.2019, which is not permissible and the orders of the execution could have only been passed after a final decree was passed in the suit.

2.4. He relies upon the judgements of this Court in Sanjay Gupta vs. M/s Cottage Industries Exposition Ltd. in C.S. (OS) No. 140/2021 and Mr. Vijendra Kishan Gupta and Another vs. M/s Yusuf Engineering Co. Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. in C.S. (OS) No. 1108/2007; in support of his contention.

3. In reply, the learned counsel for the Respondent states that the Trial Court has exercised its jurisdiction under Section 94 read with Section 151 of CPC and more specifically under Section 94 (b) and (e) of CPC.

3.1. She states that the facts and circumstances in this case, justified the exercise of that jurisdiction by the Trial Court, so as to secure the ends of justice. In this regard, she relies upon the proceedings of 25.09.2019, 11.08.2020, 21.01.2021 and 23.02.2021 before the Trial Court.

3.2. She states that after the passing of the order dated 11.04.2022, the Petitioner herein without any just cause absented fro