BHAGWANDAS PAWAIYA Vs. KAILASH NARAYAN AND BROS FIRM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision has been preferred against the order dated 6-12-1995 passed by the Third Civil Judge Class II, Gwalior in the Execution Case No. 2-A/78 x 95 whereby an objection under Order 21, Rule 23, Civil Procedure Code read with section 47, Civil Procedure Code filed by the petitioner was rejected.

(2.) THE decree for eviction against the petitioner was passed in favour of the respondent and it became final upto the Apex Court. During the execution of the decree for eviction of the petitioner, it was alleged by the petitioner-judgment-debtor that he was given two months time to vacate the premises. The execution proceedings were started on 18-2-1995 and eviction warrant was issued against the petitioner. The petitioner filed an objection that the respondent firm in whose favour the decree was passed has been dissolved and as such decree could not be executed. The judgment-debtor/petitioner further alleged that now he has deposited the entire rent in the execution proceedings and the decree could not be executed for eviction against him which was passed on the ground of default.

(3.) AS regards the first question raised by the petitioner that since the firm has been dissolved the decree for eviction could not be executed, it is enough to say that the decree stands in favour of the respondent for eviction against the tenant/petitioner. The decree had become final upto the Apex Court and during execution proceedings even if the firm said to have been dissolved which has been denied does not make any difference and the decree for eviction can very well be executed. This point was given up during-arguments.