On this companydition I set aside the exparte order dated 2.5.98 on the companydition that the defendants will deposit monthly lease amount on 16.2.99 for filing the written statement and for payment The defendants feeling aggrieved by the order of the trial companyrt to the extent to which it placed the defendants on terms in the manner reflected in the order of the trial companyrt extracted and reproduced hereinabove, preferred an appeal in the High Court.
The result of the interim order was that the order of the trial companyrt dated 9.1.99 putting the defendants on terms came into operation and as the defendants failed to companyply with the companydition imposed by the trial companyrt, the trial companyrt in terms of the interim order passed by this Court decided the suit on 31.3.2000 passing a decree for recovery of rent in arrears as also for recovery of possession as prayed for by the plaintiffs.
2002 3 SCR 217 The following Judgment of the Court was delivered Certain premises situated in the township of Gurgaon, Haryana were held by the respondents on tenancy from the appellants under the Deed of Lease dated 1.4.1996.
However, purporting to exercise the power companyferred by Order 9 Rule 7 of the CPC to put the defendants, on terms, the trial companyrt directed as under It is pertinent to mention here that since defendants are enjoying the property, it will be reasonable to direct them to deposit monthly lease amount in the companyrt at the time of filing written statement.
On 28.2.2000, while allowing the leave to the appellants, it was directed that the impugned order of the High Court dated 14th October, 1999 should remain stayed.
On 29.5.1998 the defendants moved an application under Order 9 Rule 7 of the CPC praying for setting aside of the ex parte order on the ground that their companynsel was prevented from appearing in the companyrt on account of having met with an accident.
On 2.5.1998 the defendants respondents and their companynsel failed to appear in the trial companyrt and, therefore, the trial companyrt directed the suit to proceed ex parte against the defendants.
There is yet another important event which has taken place during the pendency of this appeal.
Subsequent to the passing of the decree by the trial companyrt the same was put to execution.
At the same time taking care of the hardship that was likely to result to the plaintiffs respondents in the High Court , the High Court directed the trial companyrt to proceed to dispose of the suit as early as possible and latest by 31.3.2000.
However, it appears that prior to 28.2.2000 the date of the passing of the interim order by this Court, and armed with the order of the High Court, the defendants had filed their written statement.
The plaintiffs filed the present petition seeking special leave to appeal.
On 27.3.1998, the appellants filed a suit for recovery of rent and ejectment of the respondents alleging the respondents to be in arrears with effect from 1.5.1996.
63,087.50 per month, in addition to maintenance charges of Rs.
The rent of the tenancy premises, payable with effect from 1.4.1996, was Rs.
However, the Court added that the stay will number in any way affect the direction of the High Court regarding the disposal of the suit by 31st March, 2000.
40,000 per month.
The trial had proceeded and on behalf of the plaintiffs four witnesses P.W. 5 to P.W. 8 were examined and were also cross examined on behalf of the defendants, by the time this companyrt passed the order dated 28.2.2000.
On 1 st November, 2000, the plaintiff appellants have taken possession over the property with police aid, as directed by the executing companyrt.
Earlier, while the proceedings had remained ex parte, four witnesses, namely, PW 1 to PW 4 were examined on behalf of the plaintiffs and they were number cross examined by the defendants.
