DINAKRISHNA TRIPATHY (AND AFTER HIM) SUNAMANI TRIPATHY AND ORS. Vs. MANAGING COMMITTEE OF SRI JAGANNATH TEMPLE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two Civil Revisions between the same parties relate to a house, the land on which it stands and the adjacent landed property in Cuttack town. The parties being the same and the questions involved being inter -related, both the Civil Revisions are heard analogously and disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) THE predecessor -in -interest of the Petitioners filed Title Suit No. 55 of 1959 for title and permanent injunction in respect of the land and house in his possession. Opposite party filed House Rent Control Case No. 1 of 1960 for evicting the predecessor -in -interest of the Petitioners under the House Rent Control Act then in force. The suit is now pending in the trial court after remand by this Court. Eviction having been directed by the House Rent Controller, Execution Case No. 13 of 1974 is pending. An application under Section 47, Code of Civil Procedure, filed by the judgment -debtor challenging the executability of the decree and an application under Order 21, Rule 29, Code of Civil Procedure, filed for stay of the Execution Case having been dismissed, endeavour in a second round of attack in 1981 to avoid the eviction order has been frustrated. Like a drowning man catching at a straw, the judgment -debtor tried to defend his possession of the house in another front by filing an application for ad interim injunction during the pendency of the suit to restrain the decree -holder Defendant from interfering with his possession on the basis of the order of eviction in H.R.C. Case No. 1 of 1960. Having failed in the trial court, he approached the appellate court to become un -successful in that forum also. Hence Civil Revision No. 548 of 1981 has been filed to get the order of ad interim injunction. Civil Revision No. 570 of 1981 has been filed to make the execution proceeding dormant. The judgment -debtor Plaintiff has left this mortal world vanquished in the litigations to be substituted by his legal representatives in these two Civil Revisions.

(3.) IN the background of the salient facts, it is to be considered: