HARKESH Vs. PARKASH RANI SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HAS the Executing Court erred in rejecting the objections filed by the petitioner under Order 21 Rule 357. This is the short question that arises for consideration in this revision petition. A few facts as relevant for the decision of this case may be briefly noticed.

(2.) SMT . Parkash Rani Sharma filed a petition under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973. It was decreed on August 27, 1994. She filed an execution petition for taking posssession from Jiwa Ram, the tenant, in the demised premises. The present petitioner-Harkesh filed an application under Order 21 Rule 35 read with Section 151 on the ground that he was in possession of the property in dispute. He had not been made a party in the proceedings for eviction. Thus, he was not bound by the decree dated August 27, 1994. The claim as made by the petitionedr was controverted by the respondent-landlady. vide order dated January 18, 1996 the Executing Court rejected the petitioner's objections. Hence this revision petition.

(3.) MR . Machanda, learned counsel for the respondents, has controverted the claim as made on behalf of the petitioner. He submits that the petitioner has no right or title in the property. He had filed a suit for injunction. It had been dismissed. The matter has been finally concluded by the judgment of this Court in R.S.A. No. 97 of 1999 decided on November 15, 1999. Thus, the claim as made by the petitioner cannot be sustained.