Mohd Saifulla vs. Smt Sujatha
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Mohd Saifulla, is the defendant in O.S.No.1318/2021 pending before the XXIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore. The respondents, Smt Sujatha and Sri Gona Ravindra Babu, are the plaintiffs. The Trial Court, by an order dated 07.04.2025 on I.A.No.7 filed under Section 151 of CPC, directed the petitioner to deposit Rs.7,08,000/-. The petitioner challenged this order before the High Court, arguing that he is liable to pay only Rs.4,40,000/- and that the GST claim of Rs.3,600/- per month was unsubstantiated. The petitioner offered to deposit Rs.2,20,000/- within three months. The respondents contended that the petitioner owes Rs.4,78,000/- plus GST.
Held
The High Court noted a consensus between the parties regarding the monthly rent of Rs.20,000/-. It observed that the petitioner's calculation showed outstanding dues of Rs.4,40,000/-, while the respondents' calculation indicated Rs.4,78,000/-, considering the difference marginal. Consequently, the Court modified the impugned order. The petitioner was directed to deposit the admitted amount of Rs.4,40,000/- before the Trial Court within four weeks. Regarding the GST claim, the Court held that it was kept open to be considered in the pending suit. The petitioner was also directed to continue paying the admitted amount before the Trial Court. The petition was disposed of with these directions, and parties were urged to cooperate for expeditious disposal of the suit.
Key Issues
1. Whether the Trial Court erred in directing the petitioner/defendant to deposit Rs.7,08,000/- without proper enquiry or opportunity, contrary to Section 151 of CPC? 2. Whether the claim for GST amounting to Rs.3,600/- per month is substantiated by the respondents/plaintiffs, and if so, is the petitioner liable to pay it at this stage? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the Trial Court's direction to deposit Rs.7,08,000/- was arbitrary, as his liability for arrears of rent is only Rs.4,40,000/-. He submitted a memo of calculation showing that Rs.6,42,000/- deposited at Rs.20,000/- per month adjusted rent for 32 months, leaving arrears of Rs.4,40,000/- for 22 months. He also contended that the respondents failed to provide any documents to substantiate their claim for GST, making him not liable for that amount. He offered to deposit Rs.2,20,000/- as 50% of the alleged dues. Respondents' Arguments: The respondents argued that the petitioner owes Rs.4,78,000/- along with GST calculated at Rs.3,600/- per month.
Sections Cited
Section 151
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: SMT SUJATHA
WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL ORAL ORDER The present petition is filed by the petitioner, who is the defendant in O.S.No.1318/2021, pending consideration on the file of XXIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court').
The trial Court by order dated 07.04.2025 passed on I.A.No.7 filed under Section 151 of CPC by the plaintiff, directed the petitioner/defendant to pay a sum of Rs.7,08,000/- and also reserved liberty to the parties to file their respective memos of calculation. It is this order that is put in question in this petition.
Sri. Shravan S. Lokre, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is due and liable to pay a sum of Rs.4,40,000/-. However, the trial Court without any enquiry or opportunity to the petitioner has directed to HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30866 deposit the aforesaid sum of Rs.7,08,000/-. In furtherance to the submission, he had filed a memo of calculation. Paragraph Nos.3, 4 and 5 of the said memo read as under: ''
The Petitioner submits that if the said deposit of Rs.6,42,000/- is adjusted at the rate of Rs.20,000/- per month then the claimed rental for a period of 32 months from 15.02.2021 to October 2023 stands adjusted and leaving the arrears of rent (disputed) for 22 months. Rs.20,000X22 Rs.4,40,00/-
The Respondent have claimed a sum if Rs.3,600/- to wards GST and have not filed any documents before the trial court or this Hon'ble court to show that they have furnish GST returns for the said premises.
The petitioner submits that since there is a claim for enquiry upon past and present mesne profits the Petitioner undertakes to deposit sum of Rs. 2,20,000/- being 50% of the alleged dues (Rs.4.40,000/- for a period of 22 months) within a period of 3 months before this court in the interest of justice and equity.''
Thus, according to the petitioner, petitioner is due and liable to pay a sum of Rs.4,40,000/- at the rate of Rs.20,000/- per month towards arrears of rent.
As regards, the claim of the respondents/plaintiffs for payment of GST at Rs.3,600/- per month, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30866 respondents/plaintiffs has not furnished any document in this regard. Therefore, he is not liable to make the payment of the said amount.
In response, Sri. Mohammed Nasiruddin, learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs submits that according to the calculation of the respondents/plaintiffs, the petitioner/defendant is due and liable to pay Rs.4,78,000/- together with GST, which is to be calculated at Rs.3,600/- per month.
Heard and perused the records.
There is a consensus between the parties to the extent of monthly rent being at Rs.20,000/- per month. As per the calculation of the petitioner/defendant the outstanding due as on this date is Rs.4,40,000/- while as per the calculation of respondents/plaintiffs the outstanding due as on this date is Rs.4,78,000/-. The difference is very marginal.
In view of the above admitted position, subject to calculation and reconciliation of the amounts due and HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30866 payable by the petitioner/defendant, the petitioner/defendant is directed to pay/deposit the admitted amount of Rs.4,40,000/- within four weeks' before the trial Court.
As regards, the claim of the respondents/plaintiffs for GST is concerned, the same is kept open to be considered in the pending suit.
It is made clear that the petitioner/defendant shall continue to pay the admitted amount before the trial Court.
Accordingly, impugned order is modified and petition is disposed of.
Parties shall co-operate in expeditious disposal of the matter, without taking unnecessary adjournment in the matter. (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE RL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16
Reproduced from the public record of the Karnataka High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.