SHAM KUMAR Vs. JAYANT KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') has been filed by the petitioner for review of the order dated 16.9.2002 passed by this Court in Civil Revision No. 69 of 1999 and modifying a few of the directions contained in the judgment.

(2.) Brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition are that the petitioner filed execution petition No. 1 of 1998 in the Court of the learned Sub Judge (1), Amb for execution of a decree passed in his favour in Civil Suit No. 13 of 1995 on 25.11.1995. During the pendency of the execution petition, the respondent filed objections under Section 47 of the Code challenging the executability of the decree which were dismissed. Aggrieved respondent preferred the said Civil Revision in this Court in which this Court held that since the decree was for eviction of the tenant within the Municipal Limits where Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act (hereafter referred to as 'the Act') was applicable, therefore, the decree passed by the Civil Court for ejectment of the tenant could not be executed by virtue of the provisions of Section 13 of the Act. Therefore the revision petition was allowed the order of the executing Court dismissing the objection was set aside. This Court, however, further directed to restore the execution petition and dispose it of afresh in view of the findings recorded in the judgment dated 16.9.2002 disposing of the revision petition. The findings on the basis of which the above order regarding re-registration of the execution petition and fresh disposal thereof came to be passed as contained in the judgment dated 26.10.2002 of this Court read as under-

(3.) The present review petition has been preferred by the petitioner on the ground that at the time of passing of the aforesaid directions by this Court, the execution petition stood fully satisfied, therefore, the remedy of the respondent was by resorting to the provisions of Section 144 of the Code for restitution of possession and directions in this regard could not be given by this Court because the jurisdiction of this Court was limited to the extent of allowing or disallowing the objections under Section 47 of the Code. Since the possession stood already delivered to the petitioner before the communication of the stay granted by this Court whereby the further proceedings in the execution were stayed, therefore, such directions could not be given in view of the provisions of Section 144 of the Code. This being an error apparent on the face of the record renders the directions relating to restoring of the execution petition and passing appropriate orders for restitution of the possession deserves to be reviewed.