Dismissed

Vipin Handa v. Subhash Chander

Punjab & Haryana HC10 May 2012CR/2848/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a civil revision challenging an interim order directing the petitioner to deposit money and mesne profits with the lower court, the High Court dismissed the petition. While noting the general principle that such amounts must be deposited in a bank to carry interest, the Court declined to interfere given the meager sum involved, ordering instead that the needful be done regarding interest separa

What did the court decide?

The revision petition was dismissed; the petitioner was directed to ensure the deposited amount is handled in accordance with the order requiring bank deposit for interest.

Vipin Handa Vs Subhash Chander — Property and Title | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

Civil Revision No. 2848 of 2012 [1]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

Civil Revision No. 2848 of 2012 (O&M) Date of decision: 10.5.2012

Vipin Handa

.. Petitioner

Subhash Chander

.. Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL

¶10

Present: Mr. Sumeet Goel, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶11

Rajesh Bindal J.

¶12

Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 27.4.2012, passed by the learned court below to the extent where as an interim measure, it has been directed that the petitioner shall deposit 72,000/- with the lower court within 15 days and further continue to deposit 2,000/- per month as mesne profits for the property in possession of the petitioner.

¶13

It is a case in which the suit filed by the respondent was decreed. The petitioner was directed to pay 72,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum and further 2,000/- per month as mesne profits from 22.7.2008.

¶14

After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any merit in the present petition. The petitioner is in possession of the property to which the claim of the respondent is that he is the owner and the petitioner was a licensee. Whereas the case set up by the petitioner was that in fact he as well as the respondent are co-owners of the property in dispute. The suit filed by the respondent was decreed by the trial court. In appeal filed by the petitioner, merely 72,000/- have been directed to be deposited with the court and further mesne profits of 2,000/- per month regularly. It

¶15

Civil Revision No. 2848 of 2012 [2]

¶16

has further been directed that the amount shall not be disbursed to the respondent till the decision of appeal. The amount being quite meager, this court would not like to interfere with the impugned order.

¶17

Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. However, it is clarified that vide order dated 3.6.2011 passed in Civil Revision No. 7407 of 2010—Jyoti Burmi @ Jyoti Sharda v. Anusandeep Burmi, this court had already directed that any amount deposited in the court in any case has to be immediately deposited with the bank so that it can carry interest. The learned court below has not taken care of the directions issued by this court. Let the needful be done in terms of the said order.

¶18

( Rajesh Bindal ) Judge

¶19

10.5.2012 mk

Vipin Handa v. Subhash Chander

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vipin Handa v. Subhash Chander

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

Om Prakash Vs Bal Kishan and Another

Darshan Kumar Vs Sant Ram and Others

Joginder Singh Vs Mukhtiar Kaur and Others

Gurmeet Kaur & Anr. Vs Gurjit Kaur & Ors.

Joginder Singh Vs Shishpal Singh

Om Parkash and Anr. Vs Rameshwar and Ors.