The Court dismissed a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal against an order that struck off the petitioner's defence and granted a temporary injunction due to non-compliance with a rent payment order.
The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was dismissed; no costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY
C.M.A. No. 804 OF 2014
O R D E R
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the order dated 04.08.2014 in I.A.No.85/2014 in O.S.No.70/2014, on the file of I Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad wherein the Court has granted temporary injunction restraining the respondent/defendant, his employees, followers and agents from interfering in any way causing any sort of alteration in any manner in the petition schedule property pending disposal of the suit and also the petitioners defence is struck off since the order in IA No.371/14 is not complied with.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has paid an amount of Rs.1,26,000/- but could not pay the amounts as directed in I.A.No.371 of 2014 and if certain time is granted petitioner will be able to pay the balance amount.
Learned counsel for the respondent submits that there has been an undertaking by petitioner herein that they are not going to alter the suit premises and given an undertaking on 19.02.2014 to that effect. He also contends that since the order dated 03.07.2014 in I.A.No.371/14 has become final wherein the court below observed that if admitted rent is not paid by the respondent to the petitioner from January 2014 to June 2014, as directed in the open Court within one month and also continue to pay admitted monthly rent of Rs.18,000/- to the petitioner directly in open court by filing acknowledgement report in Court till disposal of suit, the defence will be struck off. No extension of time was granted and the same has become final. As such, the trial court has not committed any error in striking of the defence of the petitioner.
A perusal of the impugned order shows that the Court below in I.A.No.371 of 2014 directed the petitioner to pay the admitted rent and also held that if the said order is not complied with the defence will be struck off. Since the petitioner has not complied with the said order, the defence was struck off. As no petition for extension is filed, the said order has become final. As such, the Court below while stating that since the order in
I.A.No.371 of 2014 is not complied with, observed the defence is struck off and granted injunction. No exception can be taken to the order granted by the trial Court. The petitioner being the tenant, is enjoying the property is bound to pay the rents. Petitioner himself has given an undertaking that he will not alter the suit premises. Hence, I do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the court below. Accordingly, CMA is dismissed. No costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending shall stand closed.
__________________________ A.RAJASHEKER REDDY,J Date: 18.10.2014 dv
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the trial court correctly struck off the petitioner's defence for failure to pay admitted rent as directed.
Whether the temporary injunction and the striking off of defence warrants appeal intervention.
Petitioner
Respondent
A.RAJASHEKER REDDY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
