JAI PRAKASH AGRAWAL Vs. ARJUN KUMAR AGRAWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the Judgment and decree, dated 24.8.2000 passed in Misc. Case No. 4 of 2000 Jai Prakash Agarwal v. Arjun Kumar Agarwal.

(2.) I have heard Sri M. Islam, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Rajeev Chaddha, learned counsel for the respondent and have perused the record. The facts giving rise to this appeal are as follows : The Suit No. 12 of 1998 was filed by the opposite party against Sri Parmeshwar Prasad, father of the appellant. The Suit was decreed for eviction from the shop in dispute and recovery of rent. The decree holder moved an application for execution. The appellant filed objections under Section 151, C.P.C. that the decree has been obtained by fraud. That the judgment debtor is not the tenant of the disputed shop. On the other hand, the appellant has contended that he is the tenant of the shop that, therefore, the decree cannot he executed against the appellant. It was further pleaded that the appellant has also filed a Suit No. 368 of 2000 for injunction to restrain the respondent from dispossessing him from the disputed shop in the execution of the said decree. That notice have been issued in that suit. The application was opposed by the respondent and it is contended that the father of the appellant was the tenant of the disputed shop and the suit was rightly decreed. That the application is not maintainable. That the appellant was also doing Pairvi on behalf of his father in the said suit. That Parmeshwar Prasad, father of the appellant contested the suit and also filed civil revision in the High Court which was dismissed on 24.7.2000. He did not allege that he is not the tenant. That the decree has become final."

(3.) The learned Additional District Judge has held that the objections are not maintainable and that the appellant is not the tenant of the disputed shop. He, therefore, dismissed the objection. Aggrieved by the order, this appeal has been filed.