DHANPAT RAM AND ANOTHER Vs. TARA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Execution Second Appeal is directed against the concurrent decisions of the Courts below refusing to execute the decree for eviction passed, on the basis of a compromise in favour of the landlord.

(2.) THE landlord filed an application for the eviction of the tenant under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction. Act, on the ground that he needed the premises for his own use. Notice of this application was issued to the tenant and the necessary issues were framed; and thereafter the case was fixed for evidence. The landlord had summoned his evidence and six witnesses were present on the date of the hearing, that is, 24th June, 1959, when a compromise was arrived at. The tenant agreed that the eviction decree be passed in favour of the landlord and the execution of that decree be deferred for a period of 2 1/2 years. After the expiry of the period of 2 1/2 years, the landlord sought to execute the decree and he had been met with a plea that the decree is a nullity. This, plea has prevailed with the Courts below with the result that the execution application has been dismissed. The decree -holder, who is dissatisfied with this decision, has came up in second appeal to this Court.

(3.) THE second contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the executing Court cannot go behind the decree and in support of this contention, the learned counsel relies on the decisions of this Court in Pirji Sofdar Ali v. The Ideal Bank Limited, A. I. R. 1949 E. P. 94. and Amar Nath v. Bagga Mal, (1964) 66 P. L. R. 347. Both these decisions support the contention of the learned counsel. The learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, contends that this plea was not raised by the landlord before the trial Court as well as before the appellate Court. This seems to be true. But the objection in the present case is purely a legal objection and no facts have to be ascertained. Therefore, such an objection can be permitted even in second appeal. I, therefore, hold that the Courts below had no Jurisdiction to go behind the decree. They were bound to execute the decree.