PARAMJEET KAUR Vs. RADHA CHAND LAL CHAUDHARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS civil revision has been filed by the petitioners against order dated 29.6.2004 by which the learned Munsif 1, Munger dismissed Misc. Case No. 1/8 of 2004 filed by him under the provision of Order XXI, Rule 99 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code for the sake of brevity) in Execution Case No. 13 of 1998.

(2.) THIS matter arises out of Eviction Suit No. 23 of 1995 which was filed by plaintiff -opposite party no. 1 for eviction of his tenant -defendant -opposite party no. 4 on the grounds of default in payment of rent by the said defendant and bona fide personal requirement of the plaintiff with respect to the said property and the said suit was decreed ex parte on 24.4.1996, which was never challenged. Thereafter plaintiff -opposite party no. 1 filed Execution Case No. 13 of 1998 for execution of the decree in which the petitioner filed Misc. Case No. 05 of 2000 under the provision of Order XXI, Rule 97 of the Code on the basis of an agreement for sale of the suit property dated 13.10.1998 between the petitioner and the brother of the plaintiff but the said petition was rejected by the learned court below vide order dated 10.8.2001 (Annexure -6). It transpires that the said order was challenged by the petitioner in Civil Revision No. 1638 of 2001, but during the pendency of that case, the judgment debtor, namely opposite party no. 4 handed over the possession of the suit premises to the decree holder, namely opposite party no. 1 and delivery of possession was duly effected through the process of the court on 14.12.2003 (Annexure -10). In the said circumstances C.R. No. 1638 of 2001 became infructuous and was dismissed as such by this court on 4.3.2004 (Annexure -12) at the instance of the petitioner himself.

(3.) IT was only thereafter that the petitioner filed the instant Misc. Case No. 1/8 of 2004 under the provisions of Order XXI, Rule 99 of the Code alleging his dispossession by the plaintiff -decree holder (O.P. No. 1) from the suit property. She claimed that on the basis of agreement for sale (Mahadnama) dated 13.10.1998 executed by the brother of the plaintiff in favour of the petitioner, she filed Title Suit No. 28 of 1999, which was decreed on compromise between them on 2.2.2000 (Annexure -3). She also claimed that a suit for partition bearing T.S. No. 163 of 1990 was also going on between opposite party no. 1 and his co -sharers with respect to the ancestral properties including the premises involved in the eviction suit and hence after the decree passed in T.S. No. 28. of 1999 for specific performance of agreement for sale, the petitioner filed a petition under Order I, Rule 10 of the Code in the partition suit bearing T.S. No. 163 of 1990 which was allowed by that court on 8.5.2002 (Annexure -5) and she was impleaded as a party to that suit.