USHA DEVI Vs. PARSHADI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this revision petition order dated 2. 6. 1998 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Narnaul is impugned.

(2.) IT is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in view of the recent pronouncements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the cases of Brahmdeo Choudhary v. Rishikesh Prasad Jaiswal and Anr. , J. T. 1997 (1) S. C. 641 and Silver line Forum Pvt. Ltd. v. Rajiv Trust and Anr. , J. T. 1998 (3) S. C. 1, the learned executing Court could not have dismissed the objections as not maintainable on the principles laid down in the case of Bank of Baroda v. R. M. Patwa and Anr. , 1996 (2) S. L. J. 1285. It is contended that the executing Court was obliged to conduct an enquiry and decide the objections on merits.

(3.) FURTHER more the whole case of the objector was that she was inducted as a tenant by Mohinder Kumar, who was stated to be the grandson of the decree-holder in partnership business with Shri Hanuman Parsad. The decree was passed against Hanuman Parsad which is sought to be executed by the decree holder. The claim of the objector that she was inducted as a tenant was supported by a receipt of tenancy alleged to have been executed by Mohinder Kumar. It is interesting to note that neither Mohinder Kumar was produced as a witness nor the objector herself opted to come in the witness box. It is in fact strange as to how receipt could be exhibited at all as OW4/a because neither the executant nor the person in whose name the receipt was made and before whom the receipt was executed appeared in the witness box.