VIJAY KUMAR DUBEY Vs. TARADEVI UPADHYAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE forensic fight in this case has exposed written laws vulnerability to succumb to unforeseen situations throwing up momentous issues.

(2.) 1977 JLJ 184] in which Manohar Lal (supra) was applied.

(3.) I have given my anxious consideration to Shri Sharma's contention and I have taken pains to carefully scan and analyse the ratio of the decision to decide whether the contention pressed by him must prevail. I have no doubt at all that the facts, as also the law which was declared in Usha Jain (supra) in relation thereto have no relevance to the instant lis. Patently and very clearly the decision is not at all concerned with any moveable property of which possession was taken by Court's baillif in the execution of a writ of possession. It concerns only the question of title or possession of immoveable property in respect of which the writ of possession was executed or sought to be executed. This position appears very clear from the fact that reference to rules 35 and 36 as also 95 and 96 of order 21 CPC is made in the decision and on the construction of these provisions only the decision solidly rests.