UMESH AGARWAL Vs. MRIDULA AGARWAL
LAWS(SIK)-2010-10-4
HIGH COURT OF SIKKIM
Decided on October 07,2010

UMESH AGARWAL Appellant
VERSUS
MRIDULA AGARWAL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Dinakaran, CJ - (1.) THE writ petition is directed against the order dated 20.05.2010 of the learned District Judge, East and North Sikkim at Gangtok in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1 of 2010 confirming the order dated 03.03.2010 of the Civil Judge, East Sikkim at Gangtok on the file of the Suit No. 1 of 2008 (original Suit No. 10 of 1994 on the file of the Civil Judge, East at Gangtok).
(2.) THE writ petitioner is the appellant before the learned District Judge, East and North in Appeal No. 1 of 2010 and the plaintiff in Suit No. 1 of 2008, on the file of the Civil Judge, East, laid for declaration, injunction and for consequential relief with respect to the plaint Schedule `A' and `B' properties. The writ petitioner/appellant/ plaintiff obtained an order of interim injunction on 16.10.2007 against the respondents/defendants restraining them from proceeding with any act and doing anything concerning the B Schedule plaint property i.e. one 7 storied RCC Building and wooden house with open space, covering an area of land measuring 61' x 103' situated at Naya Bazar, M.G.Marg, Gangtok. Based on the said order of interim injunction dated 16.10.2007, the writ petitioner/appellant/plaintiff issued a legal notice dated 06.08.2009 to the tenant (viz. State Bank of Sikkim) of the said suit property requesting them not to pay the rent to the defendant No. 3, in view of the order of injunction dated 16.10.2007 referred to above, and as a consequence the tenant State Bank of Sikkim also stopped payment of rent to the defendant. Hence, the respondent/defendant moved the learned Civil Judge, East under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of C.P.C. for necessary modification and variation of the order of injunction dated 16.10.2007 contending that the order of interim injunction will not restrain the defendant/respondent to collect the rent nor the tenant (viz. State Bank of Sikkim) from paying the rent to the respondent/defendant.
(3.) APPRECIATING the said contention of the respondents/ defendants, the learned Civil Judge, East by order dated 03.03.2010 modified the order dated 16.10.2007 to the effect that the respondents/defendants is entitled to collect the rent of the premises occupied by the tenant, namely, State Bank of Sikkim. Aggrieved by the said order of the learned Civil Judge, East at Gangtok dated 03.03.2010, the appellant plaintiff preferred the appeal before the learned District Judge, East and North at Gangtok in Civil Misc. Application No. 1 of 2010 which was dismissed by an order dated 20.05.2010, hence the present writ petition. Mr. Usha Ranjan Moitra, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner/appellant/plaintiff contends that the learned District Judge, East and North erred in rendering the finding that the respondent/defendant had not raised his claim for collecting the rent from the tenant State Bank of Sikkim of these years nor has claimed or collected the rent all these days rent from the tenant; and such finding would prejudice the trial between the parties which is still pending before the learned Civil Judge, East at Gangtok.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.