(1.) Present petition has been filed by the petitioner/plaintiff for setting aside the order dtd. 9/1/2017 (Annexure P/6) passed by the Court below by which, the objections filed by the petitioner/plaintiff in respect of the execution petition filed by respondent No.3 were dismissed.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff argues that keeping in view an exparte decree dtd. 11/9/2006 in favour of the respondent, an execution petition was filed and in pursuance to the proceedings of the said execution petition, the possession of the premises in question was handed over to the decree holder under the orders of the Court and the judgment debtor i.e petitioner/plaintiff was not present at the time of handing over the possession of the premises. As per the procedure, bailiff who was deputed to hand over the possession, has taken into account certain articles which were lying in the premises concerned and the same were placed before the Court, according to which, 33 articles were recovered from the premises and the same were released on superdari to the decree holder only.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff submits that the grievance of the petitioner was that out of the 33 recovered articles, which were handed over to him, only 17 articles belonged to him and those articles too were handed over to him in damaged conditions. Further contention of the petitioner-plaintiff is that the gold articles which were lying in the premises have not been noted in the list of articles recovered, which has caused prejudice to the petitioner-plaintiff and the petitioner-plaintiff has filed an application before the trial Court for compensating him for the supply of damaged articles, which were recovered from the premises at the time of giving possession to the decree holder and also to return him or to compensate him qua the gold articles, which were not given to him but according to him were lying in the premises concerned when the possession of the same was taken over by the decree holder.