IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Alok Kumar Verma, J.
Superintendent Of Post, Post Office Tehri Division, New Tehri & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Jas Ram - Respondent
Civil Revision No. 75 of 2022
Decided On : 06-01-2023
Delay Condonation - Civil Procedure - The court allowed the condonation of delay in filing the revision and directed the defendants to vacate the suit property by a specified date, subject to the regular payment of mesne profit.
Fact of the Case:
The defendants filed a revision against a judgment and decree that decreed a suit and directed the defendants to vacate the suit property within three months. The defendants sought to vacate the property by a later date and offered to pay mesne profit regularly.
Finding of the Court:
The court allowed the condonation of delay in filing the revision, accepted the defendants' undertaking to vacate the property by a specified date, and directed them to pay mesne profit regularly. The court disposed of the revision with the consent of both parties.
Issues: Delay Condonation, Vacating Suit Property, Payment of Mesne Profit
Ratio Decidendi: The court has the discretion to condone the delay in filing a revision and may allow the defendants to vacate the property by a specified date, subject to the regular payment of mesne profit.
Final Decision: The court allowed the condonation of delay, directed the defendants to vacate the property by a specified date, and ordered them to pay mesne profit regularly, disposing of the revision with the consent of both parties.
JUDGMENT
Alok Kumar Verma, J. - Present Revision has been filed under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 against the judgment and decree dated 05.04.2022, passed by learned Judge, Small Cause Court/District Judge, Uttarkashi in SCC Suit No.01 of 2020, 'Jasram vs. Superintendent of Post, Post Office, Tehri Garwhal, District Tehri Garhwal and three Others', by which, the said SCC Suit has been decreed and by decreeing the said suit, the learned Trial Court has directed the revisionists-defendants to vacate the suit property within three months.
2. Heard Mr. Pankaj Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the revisionists and Mr. Niranjan Bhatt, learned counsel for the respondent.
3. Present Revision has been filed along with an application to condone the delay of 64 days in preferring the proposed revision. The said application has not been opposed by the respondent. In the interest of justice, Delay Condonation Application (IA No.2 of 2022) is allowed. Delay of 64 days, in preferring the revision, is condoned.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the revisionists-defendants submitted that he has received instructions from the revisionists and according to the said instructions, the revisionists undertake to vacate the said property by 31.01.2024. He further submitted that Mesne profit @ Rs.3000/-per month shall be deposited before the court concerned/paid by the revisionists-defendants to the respondent-plaintiff regularly.
5. Learned counsel for both the parties submitted that on the said oral undertakings, the present revision may be disposed of.
6. In view of the said oral undertakings, the revisionists-defendants may not be evicted from the suit property till 31.01.2024, provided they deposit/pay the said mesne profit, as submitted by the revisionists-defendants, regularly. The revisionists are directed to vacate the said property and handover the vacant possession of the said property to the respondent by 31.01.2024.
7. It is clarified that in case of default in payment of said mesne profit, the revisionists shall be liable to vacate the said property even before 31.01.2024, but in accordance with law.
8. Subject to the aforesaid undertakings, and, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, present Revision (CLR No.75 of 2022) is disposed of.
The court has the discretion to allow the condonation of delay in filing a revision and may impose conditions for the defendants to vacate the property by a specified date, subject to the regular pay....
The court can dispose of a case based on the parties' consent and undertakings.
Enforcement of eviction decree through a lawful compromise entered into by the parties.
Courts may direct expedited decisions in appropriate cases under Order 15 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
The court ruled that conditions for stay of execution cannot include mesne profits payments without proper ascertainment, ensuring rights of both parties are preserved during appeals.
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.