EJAZ ALI Vs. AUTAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a Second Appeal against the judgment and decree dated 31-10-1981 passed by Sri S. K. Verma the then learned II Additional District & Sessions Judge, Barabanki, dismissing the Appeal No. 47 of 1981 and affirming the judgment and decree dated 2-3-1981 passed by Munsif, Barabanki.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to this appeal are that Ejaz Ali had filed Suit No. 49 of 1972 for obtaining possession over the disputed land against Maiku, ancestor of the respondent Autar etc. the suit was decreed on 2-10-1971 ex parte. Ejaz Ali obtained possession over the plot on 14. 7. 1973. When the respondents came to know of the ex-partedecree, they moved application which resulted in setting aside of the ex- partedecree. THE plaintiff, Ejaz Ali went upto the Hon'ble High Court against the order setting aside the ex-partedecree but the order remained farce (sic ). THE original suit was therefore restored to its number. THEreafter the respondents moved the application under Section 144 CPC for obtaining possession over the disputed land.

(3.) THE following question of law is being formulated as per the proviso of Section 100 CPC which has been ennuciated in legal question 5 of the memo of appeal. THE legal substantial question 5 mentioned in the memo or appeal runs as under: "whether grant of one month's time for removal of pucca construction of 6 shops standing on the land in question was justified in the present case. "