SHANKARLAL PATIDAR Vs. NANDRAM PATIDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BEING aggrieved by order dated 11/10/2007 passed by District Judge, Mandsaur in MA No. 8/2007, whereby order dated 10/11/2007 passed by Civil Judge, Class 1, Mandsaur in Execution Case No. 247 -A/96/02 was dismissed, was maintained, present petition has been filed. Short facts of the case are that one Jagannath filed a suit against Shankarlal and Devram in the Court of Civil Judge, Class -2, Mandsaur, which was registered as CS No. 462 -A/81. In that case, temporary injunction was granted in favour of Jagannath vide order dated 27/07/1981 to the effect that Shankarlal and Devram defendants in that suit shall not create any obstruction into possession of plaintiff Jagannath and in case suit filed by Jagnnath is dismissed then Shankarlal and Devram shall be entitled for compensation from the date of filing of the suit till the date of judgment.

(2.) IN compliance of that order Nandram stood surety for Jagannath and in the year 1982, suit filed by Jagannath was dismissed on merits. Since Nandram stood as surety therefore, petitioner filed execution petition for recovery of Rs. 2,24,000.00. The application was opposed by the respondent. After recording of evidence vide order dated 10/01/2007 execution petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed against which appeal was filed which was also dismissed. Hence this petition.

(3.) SHRI Vinay Saraf, learned counsel for the respondent submits that no illegality has been committed by the learned courts below in passing the impugned orders whereby execution petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed. It is submitted that the petition filed by the petitioner has no merits and the same be dismissed. From perusal of the record, it is evident that original suit was filed by Jagannath against Devram and Shankarlal. Interim order is dated 27/01/1982 which is wrongly mentioned in the impugned order as 27/07/1981. The injunction was granted in favour of Jagannath and against Devram to the effect that Jagannath shall furnish surety bond to the effect that in case suit is dismissed then Jagannath shall be liable to pay compensation from the date of filing of the suit till its disposal. It appears that Nandram stood surety for Jagannath. There are more than one reason on the basis of which it can be held that the order passed by the Courts below requires no interference which are as under: