RAMKUMAR & ANR. Vs. PANKAJ & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Second appeal has been (sic) against order dated 16.02.2009 passed by the learned Executing Court dismissing objections filed by appellants under order XXI Rule 97 Code of Civil Procedure which has been affirmed by the learned first appellate Court by the impugned order date 29th October, 2009.

(2.) The Facts in short for disposal of this appeal, are that a civil suit was filed by the plaintiffs for eviction on certain grounds envisaged under section 12 (1) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act 1961 (in short 'the Act') against the respondent no. 3 Purushottam Sharma, the said suit for eviction was filed on the basis of the relationship of landlord and tenant which was decreed by learned trial Court on 31.08.2005. The first appeal, which was filed by respondent no. 3 Purushottam Sharma, was dismissed on 16.11.2007 by learned First Appellate court and the judgments of the two courts below have affirmed by this Court on 21.8.2008 by dismissing the tenant's Second Appeal No. 845 of 2007. The tenat Purushottam Sharma/ respondent no. 3/ defendant filed a Special Leave Petition before Supreme Court which was dismissed on 15.5.2009. However, Purushottam Sharma respondent no. 3/ defendant has been granted time to vacate the suit premises upto 28th February, 2010. Undisputedly, present objectors/ appellants were not the party in the eviction suit, which was based upon the relationship of the landlord and tenant.

(3.) Shri Soni learned Counsel appearing for appellants assisting Sr. Advocate Shri H.D. Gupta has submitted that in the written statement, Purushottam Sharma has pleaded that he is the tenant of Hari Bhau and Dattatrey Devsthale. Said Dattatrey is also the brother of Hari Bhau and is also the vendor of plaintiffs/ respondents no.1 and 2 namely Pankaj and Vikas. When the decree was put to execution, Present objectors-appellants have filed objections under Order XXI Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure that they are real owners of the suit property which is part of Survey no. 855 in which, they are having half share in the suit premises. In the executing Court, appellants/objectors have filed certified copy of the judgment dated 28.2.2005 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Sabhalgarh, District Morena in Civil Appeal No. 46 of 2004 (Harigopal alias Hari Bhau through LRs Laxmi Bai and others Vs. State of M.P.) In this appeal, Dattatrey Devsthale S/o Gopal Rao Devsthale was arrayed as appellant no.3. Similarly, another Judgment was passed by the same court in Civil suit no. 54A of 2004 in which parties were Hrigopal alias Hari Bhau (dead) through LRs and other person including vendor of the plaintiffs namely Dattatrey Devsthale who was one of the plaintiff and the said suit was dismissed on 28.2.2005.