MUNICIPAL CORPORATION DURG Vs. CHERIAN MATHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD The revision is against the order dated 5-1-2001 passed by the executing Court. The non-applicant filed the suit No. 253-A of 1994 which has been dismissed by order dated 12-2-1997. Being aggrieved by this order, the non-applicant preferreed an appeal No. 3-A/97 before the First Addl. District Judge, Durg. The said appeal has been allowed. Thereafter, the Corporation preferred Second Appeal. There is no stay the same is also decided today has been no stayed. The decree, therefore, has to be executed. Objections were filed before the Executing Court. By impugned order dated 5-1-2001 the Court has considered the objections and arrived at a finding that since the decree has been passed which is expressly clear and it has to be executed. The order passed in senior (Sic Matter). The applicants could not satisfy the executing Court and are unable to show that the Court below has committed jurisdictional error or illegality.

(2.) HAVING considered the facts and circumstances of the case and the material available on record, I find no jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court in its revisional jurisdiction u/s 115 of C.P.C. The revision fails and is dismissed. Revision dismissed.