IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA
ROMESH VERMA, J.
Surender Kumar - Petitioner
Versus
Pankaj Bansal And Anr. - Respondents
CMPMO Nos. 173 of 2023, 238 of 2025
Decided On : 31-03-2026
JUDGMENT :
Romesh Verma, J.
Since common question of law and facts are involved in these petitions (CMPMO Nos. 173/2023 & 238/2025), therefore, they were taken up together for hearing and are being disposed of by common judgment. However, to maintain clarity, facts of CMPMO No. 173/2023 are taken into consideration in detail at first.
CMPMO No. 173/2023
2 By medium of CMPMO No. 173/2023, the petitioner/defendant, has laid challenge to the order dated 24.2.2023, as passed by the learned Civil Judge, Court No. II, Solan, District Solan, whereby an application filed by the plaintiffs/respondents under the provisions of Order 38 Rule 5 read with Section 151 CPC, in Civil Suit No. 37/2018, has been allowed and the defendant/petitioner has been directed to furnish security to the amount of Rs.8,73,183/- on or before 25.3.2023, failing which the share of defendant/petitioner in his building, at ground floor, shop No. 3, situated at Mauja Jawahar Park Solan will be attached.
3 The plaintiffs/respondents filed a suit (Civil Suit No. 37/2018) against the defendant/petitioner for recovery of Rs. 8,73,183/- as arrears of rent and interest thereupon upto 28.2.2018 and further future interest @ 12% p.a. on arrears of rent till full and final payment. It was averred in the plaint that plaintiff No.2, Maya Bansal, is owner of a building known as Pooja Emporium. Plaintiff No.1 Pankaj Bansal, being attorney of plaintiff No.2, inducted the defendant/petitioner as tenant in a shop, situated in Pooja Emporium building, as has been highlighted with pink colour in site plan, in the year 2000 at monthly rental of Rs.12,000/-, which was statutorily increased w.e.f. 28.6.2005 to Rs.13,200/-, w.e.f. 28.6.2010 to Rs.14,520/-, w.e.f. 28.6.2013 to Rs.15,972/- and thereafter w.e.f.28.6.2016 to Rs.17,569/-. It was submitted in the plaint that the defendant/ petitioner has purchased another shop at Circular Road Solan, Near Modgil Ashram and shifted his business to said shop in the month of July, 2012. The shop in question has been sub-let by the defendant/petitioner to Raj Rani without implied consent of the plaintiffs/respondents, qua which, rent petition has also been filed.
4 It was averred that the defendant/petitioner has not paid monthly rent for the last more than 6 years. Though rent was demanded from the defendant/petitioner, however he disclosed that he has shifted his business and intended to purchase the shop and for that negotiations were going on, thus, assurance was given to the plaintiffs/respondents that he would make the payment of rent very soon and promised to vacate the shop occupied by him as a tenant under the plaintiffs/respondents. Therefore, in these circumstances, the plaintiff filed suit against the defendant/petitioner, as aforesaid.
5 The defendant/ petitioner contested and resisted the plaint by raising preliminary objections qua maintainability, cause of action, suit being bad for want of better particulars, suppression of material facts, valuation etc. On merits, stand was taken by the defendant/respondent that he is not tenant of the plaintiffs/respondents and the story, as projected by the plaintiffs/respondents is incorrect. It was averred that the plaintiffs never let out any premises to him in their building known as Pooja Emporium. There is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiffs and defendant in any manner. Therefore, plea of the plaintiffs qua subletting of the premises to Ms. Raj Rani is wrong and baseless. It was averred that Raj Rani is mother of the defendant, but the defendant has nothing to do with the suit premises.
6 Precisely, defence was taken by the defendant/petitioner that there is a building known as Pooja Emporium belonging to the plaintiffs on one side and the other side of this building, there is a building belonging to the government i.e. DRDA, wherein milk booth of Society is located. Both these buildings join together and as a result of which, a space has come up under the project
Raman Tech and Process Engg Co. vs. Solanki Traders
A court may order a defendant to furnish security to prevent them from obstructing enforcement of potential judgments, contingent upon establishing a prima facie case.
It is settled law that power under Order 38 Rule 5 of CPC is drastic and extraordinary power.
The court emphasized that attachment before judgment requires credible evidence of intent to obstruct execution, and failure to consider relevant documents constitutes a jurisdictional error.
Satisfaction of the Court is a pre-requisite for grant of conditional attachment under Order XXXVIII, Rule 5 of CPC. Failure to comply with the requirements of Order XXXVIII, Rule 5 of CPC renders th....
Recovery of amount – Attachment of property – Void as the property subject matter of the suit not standing in the name of the first defendant, as the entire claim in the suit was against the first de....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.