LAWS(CAL)-2010-8-139

ASHOK VIJAYA Vs. JASBIR SINGH SABARWAL

Decided On August 20, 2010
ASHOK VIJAYA Appellant
V/S
JASBIR SINGH SABARWAL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application is at the instance of a third party and is directed against the order dated May 31, 2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Second Court, Alipore, District - South 24 Parganas in Title Suit No.105 of 1977 thereby allowing an application under Sections 152 & 153 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the plaintiffs/decreeholders/opposite parties.

(2.) The predecessor-in-interest of the opposite party nos.1 & 2 instituted the Title Suit No.105 of 1977 for eviction against the opposite party no.3 from the suit premises as described in the schedule of the plaint. Thereafter, he amended the schedule of the plaint by changing the premises no.4 to 6, Mayfair Garden Buildings keeping other particulars in tact. The said suit was decreed and the opposite party no.3 was directed to vacate the suit premises in favour of the plaintiff. The decree was affirmed by the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta. Thereafter, he filed an application for execution of the decree in 1990. The decree could not be executed for defect of the schedule of the suit premises. In that execution application, he filed an application under Sections 152 & 153 read with Section 151 of the C.P.C. for correction of the decree with regard to the suit premises. One advocate commissioner was appointed for inspection of the premises and he gave particulars of the suit premises and on the basis of such report of the commissioner, the prayer for correction of the particulars of the said premises was sought for. By the impugned order, the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) allowed the application. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner, third party, upon seeking permission from the court, filed the application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, for setting aside the impugned order passed by the learned Trial Judge.

(3.) An advocate commissioner was appointed for local inspection and then upon holding a local inspection, he submitted a report stating the change of the premises number in suit. Accordingly, the plaintiff/decreeholder filed the application under Sections 152 & 153 of the C.P.C.