VEGA TRADING CORPORATION Vs. SHANTILAL RAMPURIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - After a protracted litigation for over 37 years in two spells the parties have now joined issue with regard to identity of the demised premises under section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure in Miscellaneous Case No. 12 of 1989 arising out of an execution proceeding being Execution case No. 103 of 1990 which relates to Ejectment Suit No. 650 of 1972. After the first phase of litigation between the parties ended with disposal of Ejectment suit No. 103 of 1990, the next one started with Ejectment Suit No. 650 of 1972 which went up to the Supreme Court where the plaintiff/decree-holder was ultimately favoured with a decree of ejectment against the judgment-debtor/petitioner with respect to the demised premises. The judgment-debtor asserted that the decree was incapable of execution for want of proper and specific identity on the spot.

(2.) Straight-way coming to the legal proposition, I am to extract the provision contained in Order 20 Rule 9 of the CPC which is as follows:-

(3.) Emphasis may be put of the legal requirement that the description of the immovable property must be given as such, which would be sufficient to identify the same. Added to it, if the property could be identified by boundaries, the decree was required to specify such boundaries as well. In this context, what is to be found in the instant case is that the demised premises has been described in the relevant decree in the manner as given below, which, of course, also records the boundaries of the property.