RAMA RANI KHANA Vs. PRITAM KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Judgment-debtor petitioners have filed this petition against the order of the executing Court dated 18th January, 1980 whereby their objection-petition was dismissed.

(2.) On August 2, 1975 the decree-holder respondents Smt. Pritam Kaur etc., filed the suit for ejectment and recovery of rent against Ravi Khanna (now deceased). In the written statement filed on his behalf, one of the preliminary objections was that the premises were constructed and let in, in 1969 and as such, the same were not exempt from the application of Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. Consequently, one of the issues framed in the suit was, "whether the present suit is barred by Act III of 1949 ?" Later on, the defendant absented himself and allowed the suit to proceed ex parte against him. On December 31, 1977, the trial Court decreed the plaintiff's suit and passed a decree for ejectment in her favour against the defendant. The applications for setting aside the ex parte decree filed on behalf of the judgment-debtors was dismissed on December 24, 1979 and the appeal against the same was also dismissed on June 5, 1980. When the decree-holder sought the execution of the ejectment-decree, objections were filed on behalf of the judgment-debtors on March 2, 1978. On the pleadings of the parties, the executing Court framed the following issue on March 31, 1978 :-

(3.) Many opportunities were granted to the judgment-debtors to bring their evidence in support of the issue, but neither she herself came into the witness-box, nor did she produce any evidence, with the result that the decree-holder also did not produce any evidence. By the impugned order, the executing Court dismissed the objection petition on the ground that in the suit itself, this issue was struck and from the judgment, it is clear that the property in dispute was held to be exempt from the provisions of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 and the executing Court could not go behind the decree. Dissatisfied with the same, the judgment-debtors have come up in revision in this Court.