CRP/6376/2012 of Chintala Ravi Kumar, Vs Dr. Koneru Adl Lakshmi, on 31 December 2012

ORDER:

Rev.C.R.P.M.P.No.551 OF 2013In C.R.P.No.6376 of 2012

This review is filed against order passed inCR.P.No.6376 of 2012, dated 31.12.2012, which waspreferred against order dated 4.12.2012 passed inI.A.No.185 of 2012 in O.S.No.907 of 2008 on the file of theCourt of IV Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada,Krishna District.

Back ground facts which led to the filing of I.A.No.185of 2012 are as follows:

I.A.No.167 of 2010 was filed by the petitioner hereinbeing the defendant in the said suit for setting aside exparte order dated 27.1.2010, which was dismissed,against which he preferred CMA No.626 of 2011 whichwas allowed subject to deposit of Rs.2,00,000/- towardspart of arrears of rent within four weeks and also todeposit Rs.20,000/- per month towards rent on or before10[th] of every month commencing from July, 2011 for thesuit scheduled property and permitting therespondent/plaintiff to withdraw the amount so depositedwithout furnishing security.

I.A.No.185 of 2012 was filed to strike off the defenceof the defendant in the suit and for non-deposit of rent andalso to direct the defendant to deposit the entire arrears of rent due from August, 2008 to March, 2012 in respect ofthe suit schedule property, which was allowed, againstwhich, the present CRP was filed, but it was dismissed onthe ground that already the said directions were given inthe other CMA.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would contendthat the order passed in I.A.No.185 of 2012 to deposit theentire arrears of rent against which the CRP 6376 of 2012was filed but dismissed is quite contrary to the orderpassed in CMA No.626 of 2011 by reason of whichnecessary review of the orders in I.A.No.185 of 2012 andCRP No.6376 of 2012 are to be made. He furthercontends that without any order or direction to deposit theentire arrears of rents, it would not be proper to fileI.A.No.185 of 2012 to strike off the defence of thepetitioner subject to the deposit of the entire arrears ofrent.

On the other hand, learned counsel for therespondent has submitted that the order passed in CMAdoes not have any bearing on the order passed in CRPbecause irrespective of the order passed in CMA, therespondent got locus standi to seek to give a direction tothe petitioner to deposit the entire arrears of rent.

In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner hassought for six months time for depositing the entire arrearsof rent.

Importantly, the respondent sought the petitioner to deposit the entire arrears of rent in I.A.No.185 of 2012. On the other hand, the order passed in CMA is only withreference to setting aside the ex parte decree passedalready in the suit. Therefore, that order passed in theCMA will not come in the way of filing the petition fordepositing the entire arrears of rent. Further, it is true thatwithout any order of depositing the entire arrears of rentwithin certain period, the question of filing the IA forstriking of the defence also would not arise at all. In thecircumstances stated and also the plea taken by thelearned counsel for the petitioner to give six months timeto deposit the entire arrears of rent, I feel it advisable toallow this review petition and give time as sought for to thepetitioner to deposit the amount.

In the result, the review petition is allowed. Sixmonths time is given to the petitioner to deposit the entirearrears of rent of the schedule premises from today. Inthe circumstances of the case, no further time will begiven. If the petitioner fails to do so, his defence in the suitstands closed once for all.

______________________________

JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY

8[th] February,2013rkk