MADHUBALA SONI Vs. PARDEEP KUMAR SONI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in the present revision petition, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 115 CPC, is to the order dated 11.04.2014 (Annexure P3), passed by the Executing Court whereby the objections filed in the suit for specific performance and possession (Annexure P2) have been dismissed by holding that there was nothing to show that the petitioner was in possession before the litigation commenced and that the principles of lis pendence were applicable. The objector claims to be a tenant in the premises which are subject matter of execution. The subsequent order, issuing warrants of possession by breaking the locks and providing police help is also subject matter of challenge.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that once the petitioner had an independent right in the property as a tenant, then issues should have been framed in the objections in view of the Order 21 Rule 99 to 101 CPC and has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Brahmdeo Chaudhary Vs. Rishikesh Prasad Jaiswal & another, 1997 3 SCC 694 and Shreenath Vs. Rajesh, 1998 4 SCC 543. Reliance was also placed upon two judgments of this Court in Baljit Singh Vs. Balkar Singh, 2001 1 RCR(Civ) 180 and Kartar Singh Vs. Gurmit Singh & another, 2002 4 RCR(Civ) 801.

(3.) Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has placed reliance upon judgment of the Apex Court in Usha Sinha Vs. Dina Ram & others, 2008 3 RCR(Civ) 145 to submit that rule of lis pendence would apply and the Court had examined the issue and found that the petitioner was never in possession prior to the litigation and therefore, her objections had rightly been dismissed.