RADHABAI LAXMANRAO GHATE Vs. DATTATRAYA RAGHUNATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This review application has been filed against the judgment delivered in Civil revision Application No. 115 of 2006 by this court. The parties hereinafter shall be referred to as decree-holder and judgment-debtor.

(2.) The present applicant in review application is a decree-holder while the non-applicant is a judgment-debtor. Non-applicant-judgment debtor had filed Civil Revision application No. 115 of 2006 before this court. The said revision application came to be allowed. The present applicant/decree-holder seeks to review that judgment in view of the fact that decree-holder was not heard. It is contended that the matter was not actually notified in the list for hearing and therefore the decree-holder's counsel could not remain present before the court and place the proper position of law before the court.

(3.) The facts may be narrated as follows -Decree-holder Radhabai had instituted civil Suit No. 955 of 1971. There was a compromise and a compromise decree was passed on 28-2-1974. The decree was for delivery of possession and recovery of money. Initially, two execution applications were filed- one Regular Darkhast No. 280 of 1974 and second R. D. No. 131 of 1976. The first application i. e. R. D. No. 280/74 was dismissed as infructuous and when R. D. No. 131/1976 was filed, the judgment debtor moved an application m. J. C. No. 67/76 contending that the decree could not be executed due to the provisions contained in the Debt Relief Act, 1975. The plea of the judgment-debtor was upheld by the trial court and the execution Application No. 131 of 1976 was dismissed. The decree-holder/ applicant filed a revision before this court being cra No. 339/77. This revision came to be allowed on 6-9-1980. After this C. R. A. was allowed, decree-holder - Radhabai filed another execution application R. D. No. 175/81. Obviously, therefore, this was filed immediately after the decision of the High court. The decree-holder did not prosecute this properly. As a result, the court passed the following order.