Back
2012 Supreme(Mad) 2317
High Court of Judicature at Madras
G. RAJASURIA, J.
N. Pushpavalli & Others
Versus
A. Ganesan & Others
C.R.P.(NPD) Nos.2025 & 2026 of 2012 & M.P.No.1 of 2012
Decided on: 08-06-2012
For the Petitioners:P. Deenadayalan, Advocate.
For the Respondents: R1 - P. Rajendra Kumar, Caveator.
The main legal point established is that when imposing conditions for granting stay, the court must balance the rights of both parties and ensure that the conditions are just and proper.
Headnote:
Stay - Civil Revision Petitions - Orders and Decree - O.S.No.8185 of 2005 - Rs.3,000/- per month - C.M.P.No.24 of 2012 - A.S.No.470 of 2011 - C.M.P.No.394 of 2012 - Conditions imposed by the appellate court - Deposit of amount as a condition precedent for availing the stay - Direct payment to the decree holder - Modification of the appellate court's order
Fact of the Case:
The first respondent filed a suit seeking possession of a property and damages for wrongful use and occupation. The suit was decreed, and the appellate court granted stay with conditions, including the payment of damages. The revision petitioners challenged the conditions imposed by the appellate court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the conditions imposed by the appellate court were unjustified and modified the order, mandating the deposit of a reduced amount as a condition for availing the stay. The court also directed the revision petitioners to make direct monthly payments to the decree holder.
Issues: The main issue was whether the conditions imposed by the appellate court for granting stay were just and proper.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that while imposing conditions for stay, a balance must be struck between the rights of both parties. It found the original conditions to be unjustified and modified them to require a reduced deposit and direct monthly payments to the decree holder.
Final Decision: The court disposed of the civil revision petitions, modified the conditions imposed by the appellate court, and directed the appellate court to ensure the case's disposal within a specified timeframe.
1. Heard both sides.
2. These two civil revision petitions have been focussed as against the orders and decreetal orders dated 14.11.2011 passed by the learned V Additional Judge, i/c of the I Additional City Civil Court, Chennai in C.M.P.No.24 of 2012 in A.S.No.470 of 2011 and C.M.P.No.394 of 2012 in C.M.P.No.24 of 2012 in A.S.No.470 of 2011 respectively.
3. Compendiously and concisely the relevant facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of these two civil revision petitions would run thus:
(i) A.Ganesan -the first respondent herein filed the suit O.S.No.8185 of 2005 seeking the following reliefs:
.- To pass a judgment and decree as against the defendants directing them
.- to quit, deliver and hand over vacant possession of the house ground and premises at No.9/364, SIDCO Nagar, Villivakkam, Chennai 600 049 more fully described in the schedule hereunder.
.- to pay the plaintiff the sum of Rs.3,000/-per month towards damages for the wrongful use and occupation although entitled from October 2005 but is claiming only from date of plaint till date of actual delivery of possession and for costs.
(ii) After contest the suit was decreed; the operative portion of the decree would run thus:
"1.) that the defendant do quit deliver and hand over vacant possession of the house ground and premises at No.9/364, SIDCO Nagar, Villivakkam, Chennai 600 049 more fully described in the schedule here under.
2.) that the defendant do pay the plaintiff sum of Rs.3,000/-per month towards damages for the wrongful use and occupation from date of plaint i.e. 12.12.2005 till the date of actual delivery of possession and that such ascertained amount shall be recoverable only on payment of requisite court fee paid by the plaintiff.
3.) that the defendant do also pay plaintiff another sum of Rs.29,813/-(rupees twenty nine thousand eight hundred and thirteen only) towards the costs of this suit as taxed and noted below: ......"
(iii) Being aggrieved by dissatisfied with the judgment and decree of the trial court, the appeal was filed along with C.M.P.No.24 of 2012 for obtaining stay of the judgment and decree passed by the trial court. The appellate court while granting stay, imposed conditions thus:
"1.) that the interim stay granted subject to payment of Rs.3,000/- p.m. towards damages from 12.12.2005 to till date.
2.) That the amount shall be paid on or before 22.3.2012 failing which the order shall stand cancelled.
3.) Call on 26.3.2012."
(extracted as such)
Aggrieved over that CRP No.2025 of 2012 has been focussed.
(iv) One other application in C.M.P.No.394 of 2012 was filed before the appellate court to grant time till CRP was filed and that application was also dismissed; as against which CRP No.2026 of 2012 has been filed and it is only a sequela to the CRP referred to supra.
4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners/appellants would put forth his arguments, which could tersely and briefly be set out thus:
a] The direction of the appellate court to pay to the decree holder the entire sum under the decree, virtually amounts to executing the decree, which is not contemplated under law.
b] The area under occupation of the revision petitioner is only 250 sq.ft and it would not fetch a sum of Rs.3,000/- per month and accordingly, the assessment of the damages for use and occupation in a sum of Rs.3,000/-per month was fabulous and imaginary. In fact, the revision petitioner paid a lakh and odd rupees, which the plaintiff ought to have paid to the benefit fund (D2).
Accordingly he would submit that the conditions imposed by the appellate court might be set aside and stay might be granted without any condition.
5. In a bid to torpedo and pulverise the arguments as put forth and set forth on the side of the revision petitioners, the learned counsel for the first respondent/decree holder would pilot his arguments, which could be set out thus:
(i) For the past more than seven years, the revision petitioners have been squat
