Disposed

Vijay Kumar v. Amar Singh Sodhi

Punjab & Haryana HC23 Aug 2010CR/5306/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a revision petition, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana directed the District Judge to assign an eviction petition and a concurrent civil suit for specific performance to a single court to prevent judicial embarrassment arising from parallel proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Directed the District Judge to entrust the eviction petition and the civil suit to one court to be tried separately but simultaneously.

Vijay Kumar Vs Amar Singh Sodhi — Landlord and Tenant | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

Civil Revision No. 5306 of 2010

¶2

¶3

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh.

¶4

Civil Revision No. 5306 of 2010

¶5

Date of Decision: 23.8.2010

Vijay Kumar

…Petitioner

Versus

Amar Singh Sodhi

…Respondent

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA.

¶12

Present: Mr. Sudhir Paruthi, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶13

Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral)

¶14

Respondent Amar Singh is owner of House No. 108, Sector 4, Panchkula. He filed an eviction petition against the petitioner claiming himself to be the landlord of the demised premises. It was pleaded in the eviction petition that the premisses was leased out to the petitioner at the rate of Rs.35,000/- per month, who gave five post dated cheques in lieu of the rent. The petitioner had raised a plea that he had paid some amount by way of cheque and some in cash, without any receipt and an oral agreement to sell was executed by the respondent/owner of the property on 14.5.2008. Thus, there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. On the other hand, the petitioner filed a suit for specific performance of the oral agreement. Due to filing of the suit for specific performance, on the basis of oral agreement, an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was filed by him for rejection of

¶15

Civil Revision No. 5306 of 2010

¶16

¶17

the eviction petition.

¶18

The Rent Controller, Panchkula, formulated a view that mere filing of the suit for specific performance, on the basis of an oral agreement, is not sufficient to accept the application and reject the petition.

¶19

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he will confine his payer to the extent that the eviction petition, filed by the respondent/landlord and the civil suit, filed for specific performance by the petitioner, be tried by one Court, so that in parallel proceedings, judicial embarrassment may not be caused.

¶20

I find merit in the contention made by learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶21

The District Judge, Panchkula, is directed to entrust the eviction petition, filed by the respondent against the petitioner and the civil suit (Annexure P2), filed by the petitioner, to one Court, which shall try the same separately but simultaneously.

¶22

With the observations made above, the present revision petition is disposed of.

¶23

(Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge

¶24

August 23, 2010 “ DK ”

Vijay Kumar v. Amar Singh Sodhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay Kumar v. Amar Singh Sodhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pinki Rani Vs Anil Mahajan

Nand Lal Vs Ashok Kuamr

Sangat Singh and Anr. Vs Balraj Aggarwal and Anr.

Jagbir Singh Vs Sanjay Bhatia

M/S Randhawa Institute of Physics and Anr. Vs Anil Kumar and Ors.

Shanta Devgon and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.