K. Kannan, J. - (1.) The revision petition is against an order disposing of a review application for the order passed on 22.12.2015. The order contained an alleged concession made by the defendant that he would bring the rent amount on the next date of hearing. The exact words directed to the defendant are, "the defendant shall also bring the rent amount on the next date of hearing as undertaken by him in the court today."
(2.) The application was filed by the defendant to contend that there had been no such undertaking and the order ought to be therefore modified. The court proceeded to pass the order wherein it has made the following observations, in its bid to reconstruct the events that are took place on 22.12.2015. The relevant portions are, "After the Court had dictated the aforementioned order on December 22 in the open Court in the presence of the parties and their respective counsels, the learned counsel for the plaintiff urged that all the issues concerning the defendant company had been addressed by the Court but their issue regarding the payment of rent had not been addressed. At this juncture Shri J.K. Dang, Advocate, the learned counsel for the defendant company assured the Court that the rentals shall be paid on the next date of hearing and he simultaneously instructed his client to fetch the amount due on the next date of hearing. At that juncture, the learned counsel for the plaintiff leapt on the opportunity and insisted that the undertaking given by the opposite party be also mentioned in the order. Mr. Dang then asked the Court to record the fact in the order since his client had the intention to pay the amount. It was in this scenario that the contentious line regarding payment of rent was recorded in the order of December 22. It does not lie in the mouth of the defendant company to come up and say that his recorded statement of December 22 does not mention of any commitment to pay the rent......".
(3.) The learned senior counsel the petitioner/defendant contended that the court was not justified in recording a statement of what was never made and that therefore the defendant should be relieved from an alleged undertaking to pay rent upto December 2015. The learned senior counsel contended that there could be no such obligation arising under the contract which according to him stood rescinded and he cannot therefore be compelled to make the payment of rent in the manner directed. The grievance was that the trial Judge was not disposing of the application for injunction filed by the plaintiff but was giving direction which cannot be issued in a suit which is otherwise incompetent.;