RADHA RAJAK ALIAS RADHIKA RAJA Vs. BALMIKI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) This revision application is directed against the order dated 19-7-1996 passed by the Munsif, Banks, in Execution Case No. 11 of 1993 whereby in purported exercise of jurisdiction under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the petitioner was directed to deliver possession of the suit land to the defendant-Decree Holder.

(3.) It appears that the plaintiffs-petitioners filed Title Suit No. 47 of 1971 against the defendants-Opposite parties for declaration of title and confirmation/recovery of possession. Further relief for removal of encroachment was also claimed. The suit was dismissed by the learned Munsif holding that the plaintiffs-petitioners are not in lawful possession of the suit property. The judgment and decree of the trial Court was confirmed by the first appellate Court and also by this Court in Second Appeal No. 354 of 1991. Since the suit was dismissed with costs, a decree was prepared for realisation of costs from the plaintiffs. The defendants-Decree holders filed execution case being Execution Case No. 11 of 1993 and claimed recovery of the suit property besides costs awarded in the decree. In the said execution case, the defendants-Decree holders filed an application praying to the Executing Court for passing an appropriate order for demolition of structures and for recovery of possession of the suit property. It is stated in the said petition that during the pendency of the suit, the plaintiffs-Judgment-debtors obtained an order of injunction whereby the defendants-Decree Holders were restrained from going over the suit land. It is alleged that after the order of injunction was passed by the Court below, the plaintiffs-Judgment-debtors constructed buildings and other structures in the suit premises without obtaining any permission from the Court and further that the plaintiffs also developed boundary wall towards northern side of the suit land. The said application was opposed by the plaintiffs-petitioners by denying and disputing the allegations made by the Decree holders and stated that there is no decree for removal of structures or for recovery of possession and, therefore, the application filed by the defendant is illegal and mala fide. The Court below after hearing the parties allowed the application filed by the defendant-Decree holders and directed the plaintiffs-Judgment-debtors to vacate the suit land within two months.