Sajan Sahajwani and Another vs Dharamdas Sindhi

Hon''ble Krishna Murari, J.—Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of applicant-revisionists is taken on record. Heard Sri Arvind Kumar Srivastava learned counsel for the applicant-revisionists and Sri Apurva Hajela for the respondent.

Vide order dated 22.1.2008 execution of the impugned order dated 18.12.2007 was stayed provided the applicants deposit the entire decretal amount within a period of one month and shall go on paying the damages for use and occupation of the building in dispute by 7th of every month. Subsequently, an application was filed on behalf of the applicant-revisionists to modify the interim order dated 22.1.2008 by removing the condition of payment of damages for use and occupation of the premises in dispute month by month. Vide order dated 23.4.2010 the modification application was dismissed and it was further directed that the landlord-respondent shall be entitled to withdraw the amount deposited by the applicant-revisionists. Again an application has been filed on behalf of the applicant-revisionists by Sri Jitendra Kumar Srivastava to recall the order dated 23.4.2010 on the ground that the order was passed ex-parte without hearing the applicant-revisionists inasmuch as the order itself records that the case has been taken up on a mention made by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-landlord and the learned counsel for the applicant-revisionists initially accepted notice but later on, scored out the receiving and no one is present on behalf of the applicant. Although this fact is being disputed by Sri Arvind Kumar Srivastava who has appeared for the applicant-revisionists.

Be that as it may, it is not for this Court to enter into this controversy inasmuch as there is a decree of eviction against the applicant-revisionists and they are under obligation to pay the damages in case they want to keep the accommodation in their occupation and the respondent-landlord is entitled to withdraw the amount deposited by the applicant-revisionist. In such circumstances, initial order dated 22.1.2008 did not require any modification and the same was rightly rejected. It does not make any difference even if the modification application was rejected without hearing the counsel of the applicant-revisionists.

In view of above, the recall application stands rejected. The revision be listed before the appropriate Court and shall not be treated as part heard or tied up to this Bench.