ENAMUL HORO Vs. HARBANS KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision petition has been preferred by the above-named judgment debtor-petitioner in Execution Case No. 4 of 1995 against the order dated 6.5.1995 passed by Shri N.C.Gupta, Sub-Judge, Vth, Inchargc, Jamshedpur, whereby and whereunder a writ of delivery of possession was issued for affecting the delivery of possession by deputing the police force.

(2.) Title (Eviction) Suit No. 60 of 1986 was filed by the Opposite Party against the petitioner for a decree of recovery of possession of the suit premises after evicting the defendant. The suit was decreed on 30.7.1994 and decree was signed on 18.8.1994. Against that judgment and decree, the petitioner filed Eviction Appeal No. 22 of 1994 before the court of District Judge, Jamshedpur and also filed a Caveat under Section 148-A C.P.C. on 7.10.1994 before the Court of Sub-Judge, Vth. In that Caveat proceeding, orders were passed, which has been annexed as Annexure-1. It was ordered and directed to the office that the Caveat should be put up as and when Execution case would be filed. In the order itself, it was mentioned specifically that an Eviction Appeal No. 22 of 1994 was pending before the District Judge, Jamshedpur, but curiously enough on 4.5.1995, the Opposite Party filed an Execution case for executing the decree being Execution Case No. 4/95. It was registered on 5.5.1995 and a report was called for from the Shrestidar and order was passed to be put up on 6.5.1995. It appears on the back side of the, Execution petition, Shrestidar gave a note that no caveat petition, was filed by the judgment debtor. Accordingly, on 6.5.1995 on a prayer being made from the side of the decree holder, writ for deliver of possession was issued alongwith police force for effecting delivery.

(3.) During the course of argument at the admission stage, Mr.K.S. Mazundar-appearing for the judgment debtor, has fairly conceded that already delivery of possession has been made and this revision petition became infructuous and he has already instructed his client to proceed for getting restitution of possession through the court during the pendency of the appeal. But, he further submitted that this Court must interfere with the order of delivery of possession as the same was passed not only in haste but with ulterior motive as is apparent on the face of it.