Skip to content


Pravat Kumar Misra Vs. Prafulla Chandra Misra and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTenancy
CourtOrissa High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Revn. No. 130 of 1976
Judge
Reported inAIR1977Ori183; 43(1977)CLT510
ActsCode of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Order 1, Rule 10
AppellantPravat Kumar Misra
RespondentPrafulla Chandra Misra and anr.
Appellant AdvocateR.C. Patnaik, ;P.K. Misra and ;S. Biswanath, Advs.
Respondent AdvocateM. Patra and ;B. Dagara, Advs.
DispositionRevision allowed
Excerpt:
.....the filing of the appeal and not to the deposit to be made. it, therefore, appears that an appeal filed under section 173 cannot be entertained i.e. cannot be admitted for consideration unless the statutory deposit is made and for this purpose the court has the discretion either to grant time to make the deposit or not. no formal order condoning the delay is necessary, an order of adjournment would suffice. the provisions of limitation embodied in the substantive provision of the sub-section (1) of section 173 of the act does not extend to the provision relating to the deposit of statutory amount as embodies in the first proviso. therefore an appeal filed within the period of limitation or within the extended period of limitation, cannot be admitted for hearing on merit unless the..........of arrear of rent from and for the eviction of opposite party no. 1 in this revision from the suit house. the defendant in this suit, opposite party no. 1 herein, did not appear and contest the suit. at that stage opposite party no. 2 in this revision filed a petition in the trial court for impleading him as a party-defendant in the said suit. he claims to be impleaded as a 'party-defendant in the suit (t. s. no. 10 of 1974) on the ground that he has title to the suit house and the plaintiff has no title to that property. opposite party no. 2 has filed another suit (title suit no. 16 of 1974) in the same court claiming title to the same suit house. the suit by the petitioner is for recovery of rent and eviction of defendant no. 1 from the suit house on the allegation that defendant.....
Judgment:
ORDER

S. Acharya, J.

1. This Revision arises out of Title Suit No. 10 of 1974 instituted by the petitioner for recovery of arrear of rent from and for the eviction of opposite party No. 1 in this revision from the suit house. The defendant in this suit, opposite party No. 1 herein, did not appear and contest the suit. At that stage opposite party No. 2 in this revision filed a petition in the trial Court for impleading him as a party-defendant in the said suit. He claims to be impleaded as a 'party-defendant in the suit (T. S. No. 10 of 1974) on the ground that he has title to the suit house and the plaintiff has no title to that property. Opposite party No. 2 has filed another suit (Title Suit No. 16 of 1974) in the same court claiming title to the same suit house. The suit by the petitioner is for recovery of rent and eviction of defendant No. 1 from the suit house on the allegation that defendant No. 1 was inducted as a tenant in that house by petitioner. If opposite party No. 2 is allowed to be impleaded and to contest this suit, then the plaintiff's simple suit for recovery of rent from and eviction of his alleged tenant will be converted mainly into a complex title suit between the plaintiff and opposite party No. 2, and the relief asked for in the original suit will pale into secondary importance. Apart from that consideration, opposite party No. 2 has himself filed a title suit (Title Suit No. 16 of 1974) in the same court claiming title to the suit house. The petitioner herein is a party in that suit. If opposite party No. 2 is not impleaded in Title Suit No. 10 of 1974 the decision in this suit will not in any manner bind or affect the right, title or interest of opposite party No. 2 in the suit house. Mr. Misra, the learned counsel for the petitioner, also states that in case the plaintiff gets a decree in Title Suit No. 10 of 1974, he will not, in any manner, disturb the possession of opposite party No. 2 in the suit house, if he really is in possession of the same. Even without the said concession also, opposite party No. 2 will not in any way be bound and/or affected by the decree in Title Suit No. 10 of 1974 if he is not made a party in the said suit, and no relief is claimed against him in that suit. The plaintiffs rights in Title Suit No. 16 of 1974 have to be decided without in any manner being prejudiced or influenced by the decision in Title Suit No. 10 of 1974.

2. On the above considerations, T set aside the order passed by the court below impleading opposite party No. 2 as defendant No. 2 in Title Suit No. 10 of 1974.

3. In view of the admitted fact that opposite party No. 2 has filed Title Suit No. 16 of 1974 in the same court, that court is directed to dispose of the said suit in a very expeditious manner. It is also said by the counsel appearing for both the parties that with regard to a matter arising out of Title Suit No. 16 of 1974 Civil Revision No. 457 of 1975 is pending in this Court for admission and hearing. That Civil Revision, if otherwise ready, be put up for admission and hearing as soon as possible.

This Civil Revision is accordingly allowed. No costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //