R.S. Chauhan, J. - (1.) MR . Sunder Das, the petitioner, is present before this Court as the learned members of the Bar are abstaining from work today.
(2.) THE petitioner has challenged the orders dated 20.3.2014 and 5.4.2014. By the former order the learned Addl. District Judge, Kekri, had dismissed the application under Order 41, Rule 5 CPC. By the latter order, he has dismissed the review petition filed by the petitioner. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent -plaintiff filed a suit for ejection against the petitioner under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, which was decreed by Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Kekri, in favour of the plaintiff on 5.9.2012. The petitioner filed appeal against the aforesaid judgment and decree. The appellate court by interim order dated 6.12.2012 stayed the operation of the judgment and decree subject to the condition that the petitioner shall pay Rs. 1000/ - as mesne profit to the respondent -plaintiff. Challenging the aforesaid interim order, respondent -plaintiff filed a writ petition before this court. By order dated 6.2.2014 this court quashed the order dated 6.12.2012 and directed the appellate court to decide the application of petitioner -defendant, afresh, filed under Order 41, Rule 5 CPC in accordance with law. It further directed that till the application is decided by the appellate court, the petitioner shall continue to pay Rs. 1000/ - per month by way of mesne profit. On the directions of this court, the appellate court on 20.3.2014 decided the application filed under Order 41, Rule 5 CPC, stayed the operation of the judgment and decree dated 5.9.2012. However, it enhanced the mesne profit to Rs. 3000/ - per month payable from the date of filing of the application i.e. 19.9.2012. The review petition filed against the order of appellate court dated 20.3.2014 also stood dismissed by order dated 5.4.2014. Hence, this petition before this court.
(3.) THE petitioner has pleaded that the increase of mesne profit from Rs. 1000/ - to Rs. 3000/ - is too steep an increase. In fact, the rental value of the property in dispute is not Rs. 3000/ -. Secondly, while passing the impugned order, the learned judge has directed that Rs. 3000/ - should be paid from 19.9.2012 till present. However, on the previous occasions he was directed to pay Rs. 1000/ - as mesne profit, which he has being paying from 19.9.2012 till present. Therefore, he cannot be asked to pay Rs. 3000/ - from 19.9.2012 onwards. Hence, the order dated 20.3.2014 deserves to be interfered with. Lastly, that the order dated 5.4.2014 had been passed in a mechanical manner. In fact, considering the mistake made by the learned judge, learned judge ought to have reviewed the order dated 20.3.2014.;