1

REPORTABLE  

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.3234-3235 OF 2009 [ Arising out of SLP [C] Nos.2730-2731 of 2008 ]

MANISHA LALWANI                                          … APPELLANT

VERSUS  

D.V.PAUL                                                        …RESPONDENT

J U D G M E N T

TARUN CHATTERJEE, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. These  appeals  are  directed  against  an  order  dated  6th of  

December, 2007, passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at  

Jabalpur in MCC No.1876 of 2007, by which the application filed for  

extension  of  time  fixed  by  the  High  Court  while  passing  the  

judgment  dated  4th of  May,  2006,  was  disposed  of  with  certain  

directions.

3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have  

examined the impugned order and other materials on record.  While  

passing the conditional decree, the High Court on 4th of May, 2006  

directed “that the tenant shall deposit a sum of Rs.10,000/- [Rupees

2

ten thousand]  by way of  compensation in the trial  court  within  a  

period of four months from the date of this judgment, for being paid  

to the landlord.  If the tenant fails to deposit the amount within the  

stipulated period of four months, the trial court shall pass a decree  

for  eviction  of  the  tenant/respondent  under  Clause  (M)  of  Sub-

section  (1)  of  Section  12 of  the  Act.   If  the  tenant  deposits  the  

amount  within the specified period,  the plaintiff’s  suit  shall  stand  

dismissed.”  The respondent-tenant had failed to deposit in the trial  

court the amount as aforesaid within the stipulated time mentioned  

in the aforesaid order.  On an application filed for extension of time  

to deposit the amount, as directed by the High Court on 4th May,  

2006, the High Court directed an inquiry to be initiated whether one  

Smt. Durga, a maid servant of the decree holder had received a  

bank draft of Rs.10,000/- on behalf of the decree holder tendered  

by the respondent and that whether she was retaining the same in  

view of the fact that the application it was alleged that the order of  

the High Court dated 4th of May, 2006 was duly complied with as he  

had already deposited the bank draft of Rs.10,000/- with the same  

Smt. Durga, a maid servant of the decree holder. The High Court  

directed the Executing Court to conduct an inquiry and examine the  

witnesses and receive evidence to be adduced by the parties and

3

then to submit a report to it.

4. We  have  heard  Mr.  Ravindra  Shrivastava,  learned  senior  

counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-decree holder and Mr.  

Rohit  Arya,  learned senior  counsel  for  the respondent  and have  

also  considered  the  conditional  decree  and  the  application  for  

extension of time and other materials on record.  In our view, for the  

purpose  of  executing  the  decree,  whether  money  has  been  

deposited or not, it was not necessary to hold an inquiry whether in  

fact Smt. Durga had received the bank draft or not because in the  

conditional decree of the High Court, it was made clear that such  

amount must be deposited in the trial court which was not done by  

the respondent. In this view of the matter, we are of the view that  

there is no reason why the Executing Court shall not proceed with  

execution  of  the  decree  passed  on  4th of  May,  2006,  and  

accordingly,  we  direct  the  Executing  Court  to  proceed  with  the  

execution case passed on 4th of May, 2006. However, it would be  

open to the Executing Court to proceed with the inquiry as directed  

by the High Court.  

5. With these observations and or modification,  these appeals  

are disposed of.  There will be no order as to costs.

4

..…………………………J. [ TARUN CHATTERJEE ]

NEW DELHI:                                        ………………………….J. MAY 05, 2009                                             [ H.L. DATTU ]