MOHAMMED ABDUL SATTAR Vs. SHAHZAD TAHERA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SEVERAL questions of law arise for consideration in this revision laid under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC, for short). What is the date of the decree for the purpose of the Order 21 Rule 22 CPC, when the appellate Court dismissed the appeal by default, thereby confirming the decree of the trial Court? Whether a revision u/s.115 CPC lies from an order passed in an execution application u/s.144 CPC? How should affixture of service of notice be effected and what is the effect of such an affixature? What is the subtle distinction between Section 115, CPC and Article 227, Indian Constitution? These are some of the questions, which arise for consideration in this revision.

(2.) THE revision, however, runs in a narrow compass in respect of the facts. THE petitioner is the defendant and the judgment debtor. THE respondents are the decree holders/plaintiffs. THE decree holders are wife and husband. THE petitioner was a tenant of the E.P. schedule premises. THE respondents, who are the decree holders, filed a suit for eviction, recovery of rent and mesne profits. O.S.No.5109 of 2004 on the file of the XIX Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad was decreed on 31.12.2007. THE judgment debtor/petitioner was granted three months time to vacate the premises.

(3.) SRI K.V. Satyanarayana, learned counsel for the revision petitioner countered every one of these contentions. His claim is that petition u/s.144 CPC is maintainable before the execution Court and that revision is maintainable u/s.115 CPC and in the alternative under Article 227 of the Indian Constitution.