Case Note & Summary
The Appellant, Kavis Fashions Private Limited, challenged an order dated 4 January 2021 passed by the Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Thane, allowing the Plaintiff's application at Exhibit 5 and rejecting the Defendant's application at Exhibit 16. By allowing the Plaintiff's application, the Trial Court directed the Appellant/Defendant to deposit/pay to the Plaintiff an amount of Rs. 37,61,606/- per month towards license fees and compensation from 1 September 2020 either till decision of the suit or till the Defendant vacates the suit premises. The Appellant contended that the amount was disputed and there was no admission of liability, and that the Trial Court erred in granting such interim relief. The Respondent, Rupani Spining Mills Private Limited, filed a suit for recovery of possession under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, claiming that the Appellant was a licensee who had failed to pay license fees. The Appellant denied the relationship of licensor-licensee and claimed ownership rights. The High Court held that an order under Order XXXIX Rule 10 CPC can only be made when there is a clear admission of liability or the amount is undisputed. Since the amount was disputed and no admission was made, the Trial Court's order was set aside. The court also noted that in a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, the question of title is not relevant and the court cannot grant interim relief that effectively decides the suit. The appeal was allowed, and the impugned order was quashed and set aside. The court directed the Trial Court to decide the suit expeditiously.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Interim Payment - Order XXXIX Rule 10 CPC - Admission of Liability - The court held that an order under Order XXXIX Rule 10 CPC directing payment of money can only be made when there is a clear admission of liability or the amount is undisputed. In the absence of such admission, the court cannot determine disputed claims at an interim stage. The Trial Court's direction to pay Rs. 37,61,606/- per month was set aside as the amount was disputed and no admission was made. (Paras 1-31) B) Specific Relief Act - Recovery of Possession - Section 6 Specific Relief Act, 1963 - The court noted that the Plaintiff had filed a suit for recovery of possession under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, which is a summary proceeding for possession based on prior possession. The court held that in such a suit, the question of title is not relevant and the court cannot grant interim relief that effectively decides the suit. (Paras 1-31) C) Civil Procedure - Rejection of Plaint - Order VII Rule 11 CPC - The court considered the Appellant's application for rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, which was rejected by the Trial Court. The court did not finally decide this issue but noted that the plaint disclosed a cause of action for recovery of possession under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. (Paras 1-31)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Trial Court was justified in directing the Appellant/Defendant to deposit/pay Rs. 37,61,606/- per month towards license fees and compensation under Order XXXIX Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, when the amount was disputed and there was no clear admission of liability.
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 4 January 2021 passed by the Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Thane, is quashed and set aside. The Trial Court is directed to decide the suit expeditiously.
Law Points
- Order XXXIX Rule 10 CPC
- interim payment
- admission of liability
- undisputed amount
- license fee
- mesne profits
- Section 6 Specific Relief Act
- 1963
- Section 41(h) Specific Relief Act
- Order VII Rule 11 CPC
- Order XV-A CPC
