KRUSHNA CHANDRA SAHOO Vs. INDRAMANI SAHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short question for de-termination in this revision is whether the objection raised by the petitioner to the executability of the decree for eviction was barred by principle of res judicata.

(2.) Opposite parties 1 to 8 filed T. S. No. 148/71 for eviction of the petitioner from the house occupied by him as tenant. The suit was filed on 5-5-1951 when the Orissa House Rent Control Act. 1950 was in force. A decree for eviction was passed on 17-2-1962 when the Orissa House Rent Control Act (Act 31 of 1958) was in operation.

(3.) It was conceded at the Bar that the suit for eviction of the petitioner-a tenant was not entertainable by the Civil Court and no decree for eviction could have been passed. It was show-ever, urged by the counsel for the opposite parties that the question of absence of jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain a suit for eviction was neither raised in the suit nor in the appeal carried from the decree, so the principle of res judicata precluded the petitioner from raising the plea of absence of jurisdiction in the execution proceeding. The learned counsel for the opposite parties further urged that the petitioner after receipt of the notice to show cause why the execution should not proceed not having objected to the executability of the decree before the court directed the execution to proceed disabled himself from impugning the executability of the decree at a later stage of the proceeding.