SHYAM BIHARI Vs. VINAY SINGH RATHAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri S.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Rahul Sahai, learned counsel for decree-holder/ opposite party No.1.

(2.) Learned counsel for objector-revisionist submits that the impugned judgment dated 10.05.2019 in Misc. Case No.602 of 2017 (S.C.C. Execution Case No.119 of 2016 and S.C.C. Suit No.21 of 2015) rejecting the Application 3C2 under Order XXI Rule 99, C.P.C. is wholly without jurisdiction inasmuch as the independent title of the revisionist in respect of the disputed house No.19A(2), new No.147 and again new No.326, situate in part of Araji No.373, behind the District Jail, Civil Lines, Jhansi, is evidenced by a registered sale deed dated 03.04.2014 registered on 16.04.2014. His possession is evidenced by the Amin's report dated 05.10.2017. The revisionist is not party to the judgment and decree dated 26.09.2016 in SCC Suit No.21 of 2015 passed by the District Judge, Jhansi and as such he is not bound by such decree. Therefore, the objector-revisionist could not be dispossessed from the disputed house in view of the provisions of Order XXI Rule 99, C.P.C. He submits that since all the aforesaid factors have not been considered by the court below while rejecting the Application 3C2, therefore, the impugned judgment is wholly illegal and deserves to be set aside. The impugned judgment amounts to decree which has been illegally passed. In support of his submissions, he relied upon judgments of this Court in Harilal Yadav vs. Ghanshyam Shukla and another, 2006 (1) ARC 198 (Paras-5, 6 and 7), Gaurav Arya and others vs. Civil Judge (Senior Division) and others, 2013 (9) ADJ 590 (Paras-12, 17 and 18), Haji Kunni Khan vs. Kapil Agrawal and another, 2019 (3) ADJ 68 (Paras 7, 9 and 12), and the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shreenath and another vs. Rajesh and others, (1998) 4 SCC 543 (Paras-8, 10, 13 and 14) and Ashan Devi and another vs. Phulwasi Devi and others, (2003) 12 SCC 219 (Paras-12, 20, 27 and 28).

(3.) Sri Rahul Sahai, learned counsel for the decree-holder/ opposite party No.1, supports the impugned judgment.