JAMALUDDIN Vs. ABDUL MANNAN AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Kshetresh Chandra Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A.S. Dubey, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1/1 and 1/2. This writ petition has been filed for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the judgment and order dated 16.8.2014 and decree dated 22.8.2014 passed by the Civil Judge, Janupur in Misc. Application No. Nil of 2014 arising out of SCC Suit No. 33 of 1981 and order dated 3.9.2014 passed in Revision No. Nil of 2014 by the Additional District Judge - II, Jaunpur.

(2.) Vide order dated 16.8.2014, the application filed by the petitioner under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short, the CPC) had been rejected holding it to be not maintainable, whereas by the subsequent order dated 3.9.2014, the revision filed by the petitioner against the order dated 16.8.2014 has been dismissed.

(3.) The facts of the case, in brief, are that the father of respondent Nos. 1/1 to 1/7 filed SCC Suit No. 33 of 1981 (Abdul Mannan v. Jamaluddin) in the Court of Judge, Small Causes Court, Jaunpur. The suit was decreed on 19.2.1986. Aggrieved petitioner, preferred Revision No. 40 of 1986 and the revision was dismissed by the 1st Additional District Judge, Jaunpur vide his order dated 18.8.1987. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the petitioner preferred Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 17455 of 1987 (Jamaluddin v. Abdul Mannan) before this Court. In the aforesaid writ petition, an interim order was granted by this Court on 11.9.1987. However, the writ petition was dismissed on 22.1.2008. Prior to the dismissal of the writ petition, an application seeking execution of the decree was filed before the Court below, which was numbered as Execution Case No. 12 of 1987. After dismissal of the writ petition, the execution case proceeded and thereafter, the present petitioner filed an application under Section 47 of the CPC before the Judge, Small Cause Court, Jaunpur. In the application, the petitioner had raised three objections, i.e., (i) the Court below, which has passed the decree, had no jurisdiction to prosecute the suit; (ii) the notice was issued on the wrong address of the petitioner; and (iii) the landlord has not satisfied his part of obligation under the decree.