LAWS(ORI)-1984-6-14

BIMALA NEPAK Vs. BUDHULAL SAHOO

Decided On June 27, 1984
BIMALA NEPAK Appellant
V/S
BUDHULAL SAHOO Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the order dt. 4-8-1980 by the Munsif, Bargarh rejecting the petitioner's application under O.21, R.58, Civil Procedure Code.

(2.) Budhulal Sahoo, the predecessor-in-interest of opposite party, Purusottam Sahoo, filed a House Rent Control Proceeding (H.R.C. Case No. 1/1969) for eviction of the tenant, Bhimsen Mohanty and the order of eviction of the tenant was passed in the said suit. The order of eviction was put to execution in Execution Case No. 23/1972 in the Court of the Munsif, Bargarh. In the schedule to the execution petition the house in question was described as "House standing on plot No. 750 AD.0 decimal bounded by the Uma Talkies Road in the East, North-House of Brusabhanu Panda, South House of Kunjabehari Nepak, the father-in-law of judgment-debtor." The Execution Case was filed by the present opposite party, then a minor, through his next friend Chhotelal Sahu. In the said case the petitioner who is none else than the mother-in-law of the judgment-debtor, Bhimsen Mohanty, filed an application dt. 27-4-1977 under O.21, R.58, Civil Procedure Code stating inter alia that the land on which the house in question stands forms a part of the land out of Basti Khasada Plot No. 750 which was purchased by her and, it is a part of her house. She prayed that her claim should be investigated and the Execution Case for delivery of possession be dismissed. This petition which was numbered as Misc. Case No. 42/1977 was rejected by the Court by its order dt. 5-5-1977.

(3.) Against the aforesaid order of the Executing Court the present petitioner filed Civil Revision No. 262/1977 in this Court which was disposed of by order dt. 14-5-1979 wherein this Court allowed the Revision, vacated the impugned order and remitted the matter to the Executing Court for fresh consideration. In the said order this Court took notice of the change in the position of law brought about by amendment of O.21, Rule 58, Civil Procedure Code under the Amendment Act of 1976. The discussion regarding this aspect of the matter is contained in paragraph 5 of the order which reads as follows : -