MAHABIR PERSHAD Vs. DELHI TRADERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the decree-holder against the order of the court below dated 22nd January, 1969, by which the court has allowed the objection of respondents 3 to 11 against of delivery of possession.

(2.) The material facts of the case are that the decree-holder petitioner before me on 29th September, 1966 obtained a decree for possession of the land in dispute from respondent Nos. 1 and 2 who were judgment debtors. The decree-holder then made an application for execution of the decree and issuance of warrant of possession. In this application he mentioned that respondents 3 to 11 were holding the property on behalf of the judgment-debtors and were, therefore, bound by the decree for possession. The execution court issued notices to the said respondents, who raised objections that they were not holding possession on behalf of the judgment-debtors and so were not bound by the decree and were not liable to dispossession in execution of the decree. These objections of respondents 3 to 11 have prevailed with the court below and the execution application of the petitioner has been dismissed.

(3.) Mr. Kohli, counsel for the petitioner, submits that the court below ought not to have entertained the objections of the objectors and it ought to have issued a warrant for delivery of possession and then on being apprised of the resistance by the objectors or complaint by the decree-holder ought to have initiated proceeding to decide the question of the objectors being bound by the decree. Mr. Kohli also submits that the findings of the court below that the objectors were in possession of the property prior to the institution of the suit and so were not bound by the decree are contrary to the weight of evidence on record and the provisions of law applicable to the case.