JOGMAYA DEBYA Vs. RAM NARAYAN MISHRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS civil revision application is directed against the order dated 6th December, 1995 passed by the 1st Sub -ordinate Judge, Deoghar in Title Execution case no. 2 of 1986 whereby the learned court below refused to decide the question of jurisdiction raised by the judgment debtor petitioner.

(2.) IT appears that Title Suit no. 158 of 1968 was filed by one Chooti Debya for realisation of the arrears of rent and eviction of judgment debtor O.P. from the suit property. The suit was contested by the judgment debtor O.P. and a decree was passed directing the petitioner to vacate the suit property. The defendant petitioner preferred appeal against the said judgment and decree before the District Judge, Santhal Parganas, Dumka. However, in the meantime, Deoghar became a fullfledged district with a judgship at Deoghar and by reason thereof, the said appeal was transferred to the District Judge, Deoghar and the same was ultimately dismissed. The decree was executed before the 1st Additional Sub -ordinate Judge, Deoghar by one Ram Narayan Mishra claiming himself to be a transferee of the suit property. In the execution proceeding, various orders were passed and the parties came before this court by filing several civil revision applications. Ultimately, the petitioner's case was that when it was discovered that the court of Sub -ordinate Judge -1 Deoghar to which the decree was sent for execution by the court of 2nd Sub -ordinate Judge inherently lacked jurisdiction u/s 42 (4), C.P.C., an application was filed praying that the question of jurisdiction may be decided as a preliminary issue. That application was rejected by the impugned order.

(3.) I have heard Mr. Dwivedi, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the O.P. 1 and have also perused the impugned order passed by the learned court below. From the facts stated in the civil revision application, as also in the impugned order, it appears that earlier the petitioner came before this Court by filing civil revision applications against different orders passed by the learned court below but the question of jurisdiction was never raised by the petitioner. Moreover, from the impugned order it appears that the learned court below has not held that it has jurisdiction to proceed with the execution case rather it has held that the hearing may proceed and the question of jurisdiction shall also be decided along with other issues. The learned court below has taken this view for the reason that the execution case was of 1985 and also all the witnesses have been examined.