NEERU GUPTA Vs. RAMKUMARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Chetan Chatterjee, Advocate holding brief of Ms. Tanisha Jahangir Monir, learned counsel for petitioner and perused the record. By way of this writ petition, petitioner has sought setting aside the impugned order dated 22.5.2019 passed by Appellate Court and the impugned order dated 23.8.2018 passed by the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Aligarh in Misc. Suit No.237 of 2017.

(2.) Learned counsel for petitioner contended that respondent has been wrongly delivered possession over the property of petitioner in execution of a decree passed in Civil Suit No.1335 of 2008, Execution Case No.7 of 2015 Smt. Ram Kumari Vs. Gyanendra Kumar Varshney, deceased later on his legal representatives; that Amin Adalat wrongly delivered possession over the house of petitioner to the respondent; that application moved by petitioner under Order XXI Rule 99 and Sections 144 and 151 of Code of Civil Procedure has been rejected by Trial Court vide impugned order dated 23.8.2018 and Misc. Appeal No.16 of 2019 filed by petitioner, has been wrongly and illegally dismissed by District Judge, Aligarh vide impugned order dated 22.5.2019; that it was proved from the evidence on record that petitioner after purchasing a plot from Gyanendra Kumar Varshney through his attorney holder Raj Kumar in the year 2004, had constructed a house over the same and was wrongfully evicted from her property. Perusal of record shows that respondent filed suit for specific performance of contract in view of agreement for sale dated 24.4.2002 executed by Gyanendra Kumar Varshney in her favour and her suit for specific performance contract was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 21.2.2005 (Annexure No.2). In execution of above decree, Execution Case No.7 of 2015 sale deed was executed in favour of respondent and, thereafter, possession was delivered to her through Court Amin. The petitioner claims herself to have purchased a plot from Gyanendra Kumar Varshney through his power of attorney on 14.6.2004, subsequent to agreement for sale dated 24.4.2002. Petitioner also filed Civil Suit No.410 of 2017 which was allegedly withdrawn by her.

(3.) The contention of petitioner that vide order dated 5.12.2017 (Annexure No.7) passed in Revision No.266 of 2017, proceedings of possession dated 24.5.2017 were cancelled, is wrong, incorrect and misconceived. The courts below have disposed off application of petitioner under XXI Rule 99 and Sections 144 and 151 of CPC by detailed and reasoned order in accordance with law.