DAULAT RAM Vs. DEVANTIN BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The substantial question of law involved, formulated and to be answered in the appellant/objector's second appeal is as under:-

(2.) The appellant/objector herein filed an application to the execution of decree dated 14.10.2000 passed in Civil Suit No.47A/96 (Devantin Bai v. Udai Ram) under Order 21 Rule 97 to 103 of the CPC stating inter-alia that he is in possession of the suit shop running welding and motor binding works and respondent No.1/decree-holder is trying to dispossess him from the suit premises and his possession be protected, which was replied by the decree-holder. The trial Court by its order dated 22.2.2001 rejected the application, against which, the appellant/objector preferred first appeal, which was dismissed by the First Appellate Court. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order of the First Appellate Court, this second appeal under Section 100 of the CPC has been preferred by the appellant/objector, in which substantial question of law has been framed by this Court, which has been set-out in opening paragraph of this judgment.

(3.) Mr.P.K.C.Tiwari, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant/objector, would submit that the trial Court has not given proper and due opportunity of hearing as provided under Order 21 Rules 97, 98 and 99 of the CPC to the applicant before rejecting his application. Therefore, the impugned decree is unsustainable and bad in law.