GOVIND WADHWA Vs. RAKESH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revisionist is an applicant of an application filed under Order 21 Rule 97 C.P.C. in a proceeding, which stood culminated by virtue of a judgment dtd. 15/2/2020, as a result of an adjudication made in a S.C.C. Suit No. 32 of 2019, which has decreed in favour of the landlord/ respondent. Subsequent thereto, the decree, as rendered by the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Dehradun, was put to execution, which was registered as Execution Case No. 7 of 2020 "Rakesh Kumar Vs. Mihir Gupta". The same is pending consideration.

(2.) The controversy, which emanates herein, is that under the pretext of a pre-existing partnership deed, which happens to be registered under the strength of an existing partnership deed, he submits that he had right to continue the occupancy of the tenement in question, from which he contends that he is in possession and was conducting his business. Consequently, as a result thereto, he had filed an application numbered as R.M. No. 500 of 2020 "Govind Wadhwa Vs. Rakesh Kumar and others" under Order 21 Rule 97 C.P.C., invoking the provisions contained under Order 21 Rule 97 C.P.C. The said application, when it was listed on 18/1/2021, the same was dismissed by the learned Executing Court on the ground that the counsel for the revisionist, as well as the revisionist himself was not present before the Court to press the application under Order 21 Rule 97 C.P.C. Seeking recall of the order dtd. 18/1/2021, the revisionist filed a Misc. Application No. 40 of 2021, which too has been dismissed by one of the impugned orders, which is under challenge before this Court i.e. an order dtd. 20/1/2021.

(3.) While rejecting the application by the impugned order, the learned Court of IIIrd Additional District Judge, Dehradun, has assigned the reason that the application, which was instituted on 3/12/2020, the counsel had not appeared on the said date and, by filing the recall application on the pretext that the counsel was ailing, no evidence, as such, was placed on record in support of their contention and this Court is of the view that it cannot be ruled out that the recourse to the application under Order 21 Rule 97 C.P.C. was adopted to install the execution proceedings of the decree, which was rendered in favour of the landlord.