RAMAKANTA DAS Vs. GITA DEVI CHOUDHURY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This case brings forth the general impression that in this country difficulty of a litigant starts after getting a favourable decree / order. Civil Revision petition filed by the judgment-debtor is directed against the order passed by First Munsif, Cuttack on 19-3-81 in Execution Case No. 254 of 1988 rejecting the plea that the decree-holder is not entitled to execute the decree.

(2.) The relevant facts leading to the present proceeding may be stated thus : The original decree holder, Akhaya Kumar Behera, obtained an order from the House Rent Controller, Cuttack for eviction of the petitioner from the premises in question, 183 decimals of land under two plots, 72 decimals in plot No.1251, 111 decimals in plot No.1252 and a pucca house standing on a portion of it, under Khata No. 360 in Mouza Unit No.16, Bisinabar which is a part of Cuttack town. He filed Execution Case No. 254 of 1988 in the Court of the Munsif, First Court, Cuttack to execute the said eviction order. During pendency of the said case, the opposite party purchased a portion of the property, 82 decimals, with the house standing thereon. On getting information about the sale, the petitioner filed an application purportedly under Section 47, C.P.C. contending that since the decree-holder had sold the property in question he was not entitled to execute the decree. The opp. party-purchaser filed an application before the Executing Court seeking permission to intervene in the case. The Executing Court rejected the contention by order dated 12-9-81 of the petitioner that the decree had been rendered inexecutable on account of sale of the property by the decree holder and directed that the purchaser be substituted in place of the decree-holder and permitted her to continue the execution case. The petitioner filed two Civil Revisions in this Court, Civil Revision No. 954 of 1990 against the order dated 12-11-90 rejecting his objection regarding executability of the decree and directing delivery of possession to be given to the substituted decree-holder and Civil Revision No. 955 of 1990 against the order dated 31-10-90 by which the executing Court impleaded the purchaser in the Execution Case. Both the revision petitions were dismissed as withdrawn. Thereafter when the opp. party took steps to execute the decree for eviction of the petitioner, he filed another application alleging, inter alia, that from the sale deed executed by the original decree-holder in favour of the opp. party it appears that she has purchased only a portion of the property in question therefore she is not entitled to recover possession of the entire property and the execution case should be dismissed as not maintainable. The Executing Court rejected this application by the impugned order.

(3.) On perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the main reason which persuaded the learned Munsif to reject the petitioner' objection to execution of the decree was that by order dated 12-11-90 he had held, inter alia, that the purchaser (opp. party) was entitled to execute the decree and recover possession of the premises in question that order having attained finality the judgment-debtor (petitioner) is precluded from raising the self-same plea again.