MANMOHANDAS RAMANBHAI SENGAL Vs. VASANTBHAI JOGIBHAI PATEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRESENT Civil Revision Application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been preferred by the petitioners hereinoriginal plaintiffs to quash and set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 14.12.2000 passed by the learned Extra Assistant Judge Valsad at Navsari passed in Regular Civil Appeal No.70 of 1993 by which the learned Appellate Court has allowed the said appeal preferred by the respondent hereinoriginal defendant no.3 and has quashed and set aside the order passed by the learned Executing Courtlearned Civil Judge (J.D.), Umargoan dated 11.12.1987 passed in Execution Petition No.6 of 1987 and objection filed by respondent no.1 hereinoriginal defendant no.3 came to be accepted and Execution Petition No. 6 of 1997 regarding recovery of possession of suit premises prayed by the petitioner herein came to be rejected.

(2.) THE facts leading to the present Civil Revision Application in nutshell are as under;

(3.) UNDER the circumstances and as stated above, plaintiffs are required to execute the sale deed in favour of respondent no.1 hereinoriginal defendant no.3 with respect to suit property which was let to him as the defendant no.3 has already deposit a sum of Rs.25000/ with the learned trial Court on or before 5.5.1986 as per the decree passed in Regular Civil Suit No.49 of 1985. Under the circumstances, no illegality has been committed by the learned Appellate Court in quashing and setting aside the order passed by the learned Executing Court. Having gone through the order passed by the learned Executing Court which has been set aside by the learned Appellate Court it appears to the Court that order passed by the learned Executing Court directing the defendant to handover the possession of the suit premises to the plaintiffs cannot be sustained. As even otherwise, respondent no.1 hereinoriginal defendant no.3 was accepted as a tenant under the consent decree and he was entitled to retain the possession even as a tenant. In any case, when respondent no.1 hereinoriginal defendant no.3 deposited an amount of Rs.25000/ on or before 5.5.1986 as per the second part of the consent decree, the plaintiffs were required to execute the sale deed in favour of the respondent no.1original defendant no.3 with respect to the suit property. Under the circumstances, no illegality has been committed by the learned Appellate Court by passing impugned order which is just, proper and consonance with the consent decree passed in Regular Civil Suit No.49 of 1985.