SOM DUTT TIWARI Vs. VINOD KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent herein concededly was not a party to the civil suit (Suit No.407/08) which was instituted by the petitioner herein on 02.06.2008 against one Pawan Kumar son of Ram Kumar, the prayer in that suit being for the decree in the nature of recovery of possession of premises described as bearing No.248, Block A, Pocket-II, Sector 8, Rohini, Delhi-110085, besides arrears of rent and mesne profits. The suit was decided by an ex parte judgment dated 24.01.2012 by the Civil Judge. It is undisputed now that the said decree has since been satisfied, possession having been taken over by the first respondent (decree holder) from the said judgment debtor (Pawan Kumar), the issue of mesne profits/damages also having been amicably resolved through mediation.

(2.) During the execution proceedings, however, the respondent filed objections invoking Order XXI Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) claiming certain interest in the property. The said objections were dismissed by the Civil Judge by order dated 01.05.2013 in execution proceedings (Execution No.7/2012). The respondent/ objector then preferred an appeal (M-75/2014) in the court of Additional District Judge (ADJ) which has been allowed by judgment dated 25.04.2015 whereby the objections under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC have been remitted to the Civil Judge for fresh consideration and adjudication.

(3.) In the background facts, it may also be noted that the respondent/objector had earlier filed civil suit (No.590/2008) impleading the petitioner and the said Pawan Kumar as defendants. He, however, withdrew the said suit and it came to be accordingly dismissed as withdrawn by order of Civil Judge on 01.09.2012.