MANAS GOSWAMI Vs. GIRDHARI LAL JAISWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the applicant.

(2.) This revision has been filed with the delay of two years and four months. As no one appeared in spite of notice, hence delay condonation application was allowed on 12.02.2013 and on the same date, arguments on merit of the revision were heard.

(3.) It is said that real trouble of the plaintiff/ decree-holder starts after getting the decree. This case amply demonstrates the correctness of this observation. Landlords respondents instituted suit for eviction against the tenant applicant for his eviction from the tenanted shop in dispute in the form of S.C.C. Suit No.13 of 1998. The suit was decreed by J.S.C.C./ A.D.J., Varanasi. Revision was dismissed by this Court on 04.09.2009. Meanwhile, execution application had been filed by the landlords in the form of Execution Case No.1 of 2006. In the revision, this court had passed conditional stay order, however the condition was not complied with. The suit had been decreed by J.S.C.C./ A.D.J., Varanasi. In the execution application, tenant applicant filed objections under Section 47, C.P.C. in the form of Misc. Case No.3 of 2007 taking the pleas that decree passed was without jurisdiction, decree was passed in respect of a shop having two portions (do dari) and the property was not identifiable, and that the decree which was sought to be executed was shown to be dated 19.04.2004, however, the decree was passed on 19.04.2005. It was further argued that the decree of the trial court dated 19.04.2005 had been affirmed by the High Court in Civil Revision No.222 of 2005, which was dismissed on 04.09.2009, hence execution ought to have been sought of the decree of the High Court.