IN THE HIGH COURT QF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CIVIL REVISION No'. ^, / 2009 Petitioner ^-" Puranlal Gupta, aged about45years, S/o iS^'^r '^ Late Vishwanath Gupta, Poonam Watch ?-'? r:~> \'^L<^ Center, School Road, Manendragarh, w;;:::::,..^^:1'•'"'"" ^S^ R.»^ Versus Respondent €•" Shri Ram Raikwar, aged about 68 years, S/o Late Gokul Prasad Raikwar, R/o Fuwara Chowk, Manendragarh Distt. Korea CIVIL REVISION UNDER SECTION 115 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE ._...„.—.-.-.-^^'—.-.— ———--— ^^l ^ ^n^T'^r'fe^w '<^T ^^¥1^^ii^ 'siPT^IT'^n^? '^^ ^{^W^, ^Tll'H4!^ fa^lH^ ^.c.A,.....^^^^^^^^^^ ^200 ^I^T TT^F ( ^f^^) '^nw ^f^r s?i^[ S.B. Hon'bl®Shri Justic®N.K. bAoarwal 28-07-2009 Shri Parag Kotecha. Counsejl 2. Heard on admission, The instant revision is dir^cted against the order dated 04-05-2009 passed by Civil Ju|jge, Class-I, Manendragarh, Distt. Korea in Civil Suit r(Jo.5-A/2008 whereby and whereunder, the appiication fiied 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C. has been dismi^jsed. 3. Brief facts of the co|se are that on 24-10-2005, respondent issued a demand notic^ aiieging applicant in arrears of rent since December,2003. Ijt' was also stated in the said notice that an amount of Rs.40,C|00/- has been deposited by the applicant as security depos respondent terminated the tenfincy of the applicant from 2005 and directed him to settie of arrears of rent. The ground that the suit shop is not being ufeied by the appiicant ond the ^rota'^1 'RT^if ^f 'fe^ <i^^K '^3?RP:I ^^ for the applicant. |>y the applicant under Order t. By the said notice, the and pay the baiance amiount for eviction has been taken petitioner had put the lock on it. After issuance of said ^n^^*^^?{^?^?' -FS/95—11/2008—1,00,000. ^WSt^^wiy'^^.Ww^iy^'i, .^^-'^ •^^^.. .-....„ '^:.:^ \.l -w^;. ^ -A--XI-HC—78 3??^?'^T'fe?N^ WT 371^1 ^TO^" T5T "iii^i(n<1), yiTii-(-i<i<o, [si^ii'M^< HWfa ^^jc^""""""""""""""""""""""""""^^200 311^1'(WR> ( yii^^T) 'S^HW^ft^ W^T ^ notice, the suit was filed by tf suit shop and for arrears of rerj of Rs.40,000/- which was security deposit. 4< The applicant preferred Ruie 11 of CP.C. on the ground deposit has been adjusted by Gpplicant was not in arrears of notice i.e. 24-10-2005. Ther Section 12(l)(a) of the Chhatti| Act (for short 'the Acf), is not 5. Leamed Triai Court on a avGibbIe on record and after h^ parties, dismissed the Gpplicatio^ 6, Shri Parag Kotecha, wouid submit that admittediy deposited by the appiicant and, therefore, the appiicant date of issuance of notice. Tlji |e respondent for eviction of ^t after adjusting the amount detosited by the applicant as with wds <^H?<y}<fli 'RpT^f ^f f^Et <f^^i< ^^tRR^rT^T \m application under Order 7 l^at as the amount of security tHe loindlord and therefore, the rbnt on the date of issuance of rjefore, the suit filed under i^garh Accommodation Controt rhctintainabie. |lose scrutiny and the materiat saring iearned counsel for the the learjied counsel for the applicant amount of Rs.40,000/- was the respondent GS security wds not in arrears of rent on th@ lierefore, the suit fi!ed under I- XI-HG—78 ^T^i^rf^w ^^ 3T1^T W^^ 'T^r T^i^i<n^, ^•al^4i<o, [^<ni<H<j,< ^IWtF «»NI<^ ••^200 SII^T ^RT Crt^T) ^fTW^f^? ^^ -^ oflthis Section 12(l)(a) of the Act is pbced reliance on the decision c^l vs. MishrilQJ: reported in 19851 that in view of the judgment Bank vs. LaHmandas & ather$\ 32 (C^), it is always not nece^ raised in the written statement Court should decide thematterl through the face of piaint maintainable then it can be thro^l under Order 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C. 7. I have gone carefuliy thr filed by the appIicGnt (Annexur^ be decided by the Triai Court whether the security deposit amount of arrears of rent or notl amount of deposit of appiicant wiil not be said to be para 10 of the plaint, prima fac rjot Rs.40,000/ <3bl^fd^T1 "RTTI^?f ^* ft^ ^f^R '^a'tfm^^T maintainable. For this, he f the Apex Court in Chimanlal IMPLJ 1. He further submits Court in the case of Ccnf reported in (2007) 4 MPHT ssary that ground has to be ^ind only thereafter, the Trial by framing issues. If going illegations, the suit is not |vn out even exercising powers lough the copy of the plaint P-1). First thing which is to lin the facts of the CGSC is (:an be adjusted against the Iso that it can be said that tili 300/- will not exhaust the ii|i arrears of rent, Looking to |e it seems that the suit has T :C—78 ^il^T^Tl^N? ^T 3??^T$FT1W { ^"^T ^TFTRT^, ^t^FR*, f^Krll^y W^CfT^tNSch •^200 3ff^T TPW ( ^(^<si<^) ^<rrw ^ifi^ 3?r^?r been fiied under Section 12(l)(d)|< it cannot be said that bare readjng be said that the suit is not invoived in the matter needs fat Trial Court will consider after cohsi parties and after framing l|ie Therefore, the case iaw applicable in the facts and circui|ns1 In my opinion, the instant case h^s 8. Petition is disposed of. chNfd41'1 'RTR^if ^ fe^ <f^l^}< ^ 3t^TH 3?Tt^T of the Act. In both situation of plaint allegations, it can maintainable. The question ;tual consideration which the iidering the pieadings of the issues in this regard* by the applicant is not of the present case, no merit. citdd circurtnstances Ajx-'JAOl Sd/- N. K. Agarwal Judge ^