Back
2022 Supreme(Raj) 1770
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
Prakash Gupta, J.
Jagannath Prasad Sharma & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Devendra Kumar Jindal & Ors. – Respondents
S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 139 of 2008
Decided On : 02-02-2022
MM Ranjan, Advocate, Rohan Agarwal, Advocate, Aakash Gupta, Advocate, BL Agarwal, Advocate
The court applied the provisions of Order 22 Rule 4 and Rule 3 CPC, as well as Section 5 of the Limitation Act, in allowing the applications and granting the defendants the right to continue in possession of the premises.
Headnote:
Order 22 Rule 4 CPC - Application for taking legal representatives on record - The court allowed the application and took the legal representatives of the deceased respondent on record.
Fact of the Case:
The defendants filed a Civil Second appeal under Section 100 CPC, seeking to vacate the tenanted premises. The plaintiffs had no objection to granting the time for vacating the premises.
Finding of the Court:
The court granted the defendants the right to continue in possession of the premises until 31.12.2025, subject to conditions regarding payment and possession. The defendants were also required to submit an undertaking on oath.
Issues: Application under Order 22 Rule 4 CPC, Application under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC, and Section 5 of the Limitation Act were considered.
Ratio Decidendi: The court allowed the applications under Order 22 Rule 4 CPC and Order 22 Rule 3 CPC, and also condoned the delay in filing the latter application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
Final Decision: The second appeal was disposed of, granting the defendants the right to continue in possession of the premises until 31.12.2025, subject to specified conditions.
JUDGMENT
Prakash Gupta, J. - application No. 2164 dated 28.01.2013
2. Matter comes up on an application under Order 22 Rule 4 CPC for taking the legal representatives of respondent Devendra Kumar, who said to be expired on 23.11.2012, on record.
3. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and legal representatives of the deceased respondent Devendra Kumar, detailed in para two of the application, are taken on record. amended cause title, which has already been filed, is also taken on record.
applications No. 1/2021 and 2/2021
4. Matter come up on two applications which are as follow:-
application (bearing No.1/2021) is filed under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC for taking on record the legal representatives of deceased appellant Jagannath Prasad Sharma on record, who said to be expired on 06.05.2020, his legal representatives are detailed in para No. 1 of the application. application is not filed within the prescribed time of limitation and an application (bearing No.2/2021) has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation act for condonation of delay in filing the application under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC.
For the reasons mentioned in the application, the application under Section 5 of the Limitation act is allowed and delay in filing application under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC is hereby condoned.
For the reasons mentioned in the application, application under Order 22 rule 3 CPC is also allowed and the abatement, if any, is set aside and the legal representatives of the deceased appellant Jagannath Prasad Sharma who are detailed in para No.1 of the application, are taken on record. amended cause title which has already been filed, is taken on record.
S.B. Civil Second appeal No. 139/2008
5. The instant Civil Second appeal under Section 100 CPC has been filed by the defendants-appellants (for short 'the defendants') aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 16th February, 2008 passed by the Court of learned additional District Judge No. 1, ajmer whereby the said court dismissed the appeal filed by the defendants and confirmed the judgment and decree dated 27th March, 1997 passed by the Court of learned additilnal Civil Judge (Junior Division), ajmer City (North), ajmer in Civil Suit No.19/1996.
6. Learned senior counsel for the defendants, Mr. MM Ranjan, after arguing the matter at some length, on instruction of his clients, has not pressed this appeal on merits. The only prayer made by him is that time upto 31.12.2025 may kindly be granted to the defendants to vacate the tenanted/suit premises (for short 'the premises').
7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondentsplaintiffs (for short 'the plaintiffs') Mr. akash Gupta on instructions of his clients has no objection in granting the time as prayed for by the learned counsel for the defendants for vacating the premises.
8. In view of the aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the parties, this second appeal is being decided in the following terms:-
1. The defendants shall be entitled to continue in possession of the premises uptill 31.12.2025 but not beyond that, subject to condition that they will hand over the vacant and peaceful possession of the premises to the plaintiffs on or before 31.12.2025.
2. The defendants shall deposit arrears of mesne profit, if any, due towards him up to 31.12.2021 @ Rs.130/- per month within a period of one month from today with the Bank account of the plaintiffs and thereafter, from 1st January, 2022 the defendants shall continue to deposit the mesne profit @ Rs.5000/- per month with the bank account of the plaintiffs by 15th of each month.
3. The defendants shall not alienate or otherwise create third party right or hand over possession of the premises in question to any other person.
4. If the defendants fail to deposit the mesne profit consecutively for four months, the plaintiffs shall be at liberty to execute the decree without any further reference to the Court.
9. Further, the defendants shall submit an undertaking on oath incorporating the
