ANUPAM COFFEE HOUSE KANDAGHAT Vs. VED PRAKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed by the petitioners-objectors against the order dated April 12, 2004 passed by learned District Judge, Solan in CMA No. 6-S/14 of 2003 affirming the order passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kandaghat in case No. 3 and 4-K/II of 2003, dated 8.12.2003 dismissing the objections of the petitioners filed under Order 21 Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure in Execution Petition No. 8-K/ 10 of 2003.

(2.) Plaintiff Ved Parkash Sharma, respondent No. 1 herein had filed a suit against Jugal Kishore, respondent No. 2 herein for the possession of the land and building comprising in Khasra No. 619 situate in Mauja Srinagar, Kandaghat Bazar, District Solan. The said suit was decreed by the learned trial Court on 20.6.1998. The appeal filed by Jugal Kishore Sharma, respondent No. 2 against the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court in Civil Suit No. 53/1 of 1996 was dismissed by the learned first appellate Court. Cross appeal filed by Ved Parkash Sharma was also dismissed as not pressed. Ved Parkash Sharma, respondent No. 1-plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the 'Decree Holder') filed execution petition against Jugal Kishore Sharma, respondent No.2 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Judgment Debtor') before the trial Court. The present petitioners-objectors have filed objections against the execution petition inter alia on the following grounds:

(3.) In the reply to the objection petition, the Decree Holder pleaded that the objectors have no locus standi to file the objection petition and they have not approached the Court with clean hands. He stated that the premises in dispute had been taken on rent by Jugal Kishore Sharma, Judgment- Debtor and it was he who had been paying the rent to the Decree-Holder. However, it was denied that M/s. Anupam Coffee House was a partnership firm. In the alternative, it was averred that even if the said concern firm was a partnership firm, the Decree-Holder had no knowledge thereof nor was that concern inducted as tenant by him at any stage and that the tenancy was created and continued to be in favour of Jugal Kishore Sharma, Judgment-Debtor in his personal capacity.