KOKILA AND ORS. Vs. ANYAJI AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Shri K.P. Mahalle, the learned Advocate holding for Shri R.L. Khapre, Advocate for the petitioners and Shri R.S. Charpe, the learned Advocate for the respondent No. 1. None appears for the respondent No. 2.

(2.) THE petition is filed by the decree -holders challenging the order passed by the executing Court rejecting the objection of the decree -holders regarding accepting the affidavit in lieu of examination -in -chief filed by the judgment -debtor. Shri Vishweshwar Raghobaji Bundhade -the predecessor -in -title of the petitioners had filed Regular Civil Suit No. 305/1981 which was renumbered as Regular Civil Suit No. 2553/1987, against the respondent No. 1 praying for decree for ejectment and possession of the suit house and for damages. The civil suit was decided along with Special Civil Suit No. 438/1985 and the Regular Civil Suit No. 1578/84, by the judgment dated 04 -12 -1996. The trial Court decreed the Regular Civil Suit No. 2553/1987 and directed the respondent No. 1 to handover the vacant possession of the suit property to Shri Vishweshwar Raghobaji Bundhade. The judgment and decree passed by the trial Court was challenged in appeal before the District Court. The Additional District Judge, by the common judgment given in Regular Civil Appeal No. 86/1997, Regular Civil Appeal No. 87/1997 and Regular Civil Appeal No. 29/1997, dismissed the appeals filed by the respondent No. 1. The respondent No. 1 had filed Civil Revision Application No. 374/2000 before this Court challenging the judgment and decree passed by the sub -ordinate Courts in Regular Civil Suit No. 2553/1987. This Court passed the common judgment in Second Appeal No. 89/2000, Second Appeal No. 331/2001 and Civil Revision Application No. 374/2000 on 11 -09 -2008. The civil revision application was dismissed.

(3.) THE judgment -debtor gave notice to admit the documents under Order XII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The petitioners/decree -holders filed reply to the application stating that the issues raised by the respondent No. 1/judgment -debtor have been decided by this Court and the required court fees has also been paid as per the orders passed by this Court and the executing Court cannot overreach the judgment passed by this Court. The petitioners/decree -holders submitted that there is no stage which enables the judgment -debtor to file documents and it was prayed that the application be dismissed with costs.