KAILASHI DEVI @ KAILASHI DEVI KEZRIWAL v. SUDHIR KUMAR GAMI

length in its first three long paragraphs but its reasoning for rejecting the prayer of the petitioner can be found only in two paragraphs quoted hereinafter:- “Considering the submissions of both the parties, noted above all discussions and all materials available on record, it appears that there is no merit in the petition filed on behalf of the applicant U/S 47 of the C.P.C. and is not fit to be allowed. Considering the noted above all discussions and all materials available on record, I opined that petition filed on behalf of the applicant U/S 47 C.P.C. is without merit and is fit to be dismissed. So petition u/s 47 filed on behalf hereby applicant dismissed. “ This Court is not in a position to 2 understand as to what is grave-man of the said order, which part of the objection of the parties had been accepted and how and for reason the submission made by the petitioner had been rejected. All that was required to be looked into by the court below, in view of application filed by the petitioner, was as to whether interest as claimed by them was payable and as to whether the amount already paid under the orders of this Court were already received by other side or not. In the case of present nature, where only issue was with regard to carrying out the order of the House controller as affirmed/amended by the higher Courts, two issues raised by the petitioner to the following effect:- “(1)Firstly; interest has not been granted by the House Controller, but it has been included Execution petition. (2)Secondly; the rental paid in Treasure, vide several Treasury Challans (amounting to Rs. 66,400/- in compliance of order of Hon’ble High Court in C.W.J.C. No. 11363/98) has not been shown (debited) from the rental amount as calculated and claimed in Execution petition 3 No. 4/04 filed on behalf of D.Holder. ” Were only required to be gone into but from the tenor of the entire impugned order it does not appear that either of the aforementioned two issues have been gone into by the Court below while passing the impugned order. That being so, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the court below pass a clear order in terms of the aforementioned two objections raised by the petitioner and thereafter if necessary, also compute the amount which would required to be paid by the petitioner in compliance of the order of the House Controller. The amount so fixed by the court below however must be paid by the petitioner within a period of three months from date such an order is passed by the court below and infact the counsel for the petitioner having obtained instruction from the petitioner has also given an undertaking for making such payment by the petitioner. 4 With aforementioned observations and directions this Civil Revision Application accordingly allowed to the extent indicated above. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Abhay Kumar