1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO.3026 OF 2008. Rameshchandra Maheshchandra Agrawal ..vs.. Santradevi wd/o Uprabhatilal Agrawal and anr. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or Court's or Judge's Orders directions and Registrar's orders. Mr.P.K.Mishra, Adv. for the petitioner. Mr.D.G.Paunikar, Adv. for respondent no.1 & 2. Coram: J.H.BHATIA,J. Dated : 17th FEBRUARY, 2009. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The respondents/landlords had filed three different suits for recovery of rent against the petitioner. All the three suits have been decreed. The respondents filed execution proceedings for recovery of rent with interest as granted by the court in the suits. The petitioner filed an application before the executing court stating that the execution petition was not maintenable because 2 civil revision application has been filed. The executing court rejected the contention of the present petitioner. He also preferred Misc.Civil Appeal No.257 of 2007 which came to be dismissed by the district court. 3. It appears that the said civil revision application is also disposed of. On hearing the parties, it appears that in CRA No.1227 of 1999 filed by the present petitioner, this court had observed that there are findings of both the courts below that the agreed rent is Rs.800/- and not Rs.700/- as claimed by the petitioner. Admittedly, the court had also granted interest on the arrears. The present petitioner filed a chart showing that he had not only made payment of arrears but had made a excess payment. On the other hand, the respondents/landlords contended that the calculation is wrongly made by the petitioner because as per the said chart he had calculated rent at the rate of Rs.700/- per month and not at the rate of Rs.800/- per month. He has also not calculated the interest thereon. Taking into 3 consideration these circumstances, I find that the objections taken by the petitioner was not correct. Therefore, I do not see any illegality in rejecting the said application. However, in my considered opinion, it will be in the interest of justice to give following directions. The petitioner shall submit fresh chart showing the payment made by him calculating the rent at the rate of Rs.800/- as is already decided by the court as well as interest thereon as per the directions of the court. He may file necessary documents in support of such chart. The respondents shall also get an opportunity to file reply to the same. The executing court shall determine as to how much amount is due from the judgment-debtor i.e. the petitioner and shall proceed with execution accordingly. The petition stands disposed of with above said directions. JUDGE. chute 4