LAWS(P&H)-1988-3-2

VED BHUSHAN Vs. RAJINDER KUMAR AND OTHERS

Decided On March 31, 1988
Ved Bhushan Appellant
V/S
Rajinder Kumar And Others Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is directed against the order of the District Judge, Sonepat dated 10.10.1987 whereby the order of the Executing Court dismissing the application filed by the objectors for staying the execution of the decree was set aside and the case was sent back to the Executing Court for framing of issue and decision thereafter.

(2.) THE Petitioner Ved Bhushan filed a suit against the Municipal Committee, Sonepat which was decreed ex parte on 14.12.1985. Appeal against the said decree was dismissed on 28.11.1986 and further appeal in this Court was dismissed on 3.1.1987. The decree -holder sought execution of the said decree in which objection petition was filed on behalf of the Respondents Rajinder Kumar and others that they are in lawful, actual and physical possession of the shop Nos 21,22,23 and 24 respectively and they have been paying rent to the Municipal Committee, Sonepat. Since Ved Bhusan, decree -holder threatened them or 22.8.1986 to dispossess them from the shops, they filed the suit for permanent injunction against the Municipal Committee and Ved Bhushan, decree -holder. The said suit was dismissed as withdrawn as it was stated by Ved Bhushan, Defendant therein that the Plaintiffs will not be dispossessed forcibly and will be ejected in due course of law.

(3.) AGGRIEVED with the same, the objectors filed an appeal before the District Judge, Sonepat. A preliminary objection was raised there in that no appeal as such was competent. The objection has been noted by the learned District Judge but no finding has been given therein The learned District Judge took the view that since the objectors are in possession of the shops and have been paying rent to the Municipal Committee Sonepat, for the last several years, they are entitled to raise the objections. Since the Executing Court did not frame any issue on the objections raised in the petition, the appeal was accepted and the case was remanded to the Executing Court for framing of issues and decision thereafter.