RAM AUTAR AND OTHERS Vs. KAUSHAT KISHORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) JUDGEMENT This is a decree-holders appeal arising out of execution proceedings. Ram Autar and Kaushal Kishore are brothers and live in premises which are contiguous to each other.

(2.) RAM Autar instituted suit No. 181 of 1940 alleging that Kaushal Kishore had constructed a new door EF in the upper storey of the house which opened upon the plaintiffs balcony, and that as he had no right to use the balcony he should be required to close the door. The suit was decreed on September 11, 1940 and Kaushal Kishore was directed not to interfere with Ram Autars balcony on the first floor and not to exercise any right it way over this balcony through the door EF. In appeal from this decree, the lower appellate Court decreed further that Ram Autar could do whatever he pleased in order to prevent the use of the door EF by Kaushal Kishore for passage to the Chhajju. A second appeal by Kaushal Kishore to this Court, and cross objections filed therein by Ram Autar, resulted in a decree on November 20, 1943 whereby the declaration granted by the lower appellate court was set aside and the cross-objection was allowed in so much that Kaushal Kishore was directed not to interfere with plaintiffs balcony on the first floor and not to open the door EF and to exercise any right of way over the balcony through the door EF.

(3.) ON November 21, 1955 an application was made for enforcing the decree in suit No. 181 of 1940, as modified by this Court on November 30, 1943 in second appeal, alleging that Kaushal Kishore had commenced interfering with the plaintiffs balcony through the door at A 1, A 2, that thereby he had disobeyed the decree passed by the court and it was prayed that proceedings under O. XXI R. 32 of the C.P.C. should be taken against him Another application was moved by Ram Autar on November 25, 1955 stating that Kaushal Kishore had started interfering with his rights for the first time in 1954. It appears that in neither application did the decree-holder indicate in what manner the judgment debtor had disobeyed the decree.