RENU DEVI Vs. AMOL PASWAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner. No one appears on behalf of the Opposite party despite service of notice.

(2.) THIS Civil Revision application is directed against the order dated 22.4.1997 passed by the Munsif, 1st, Begusarai, in Title (Execution) Case no. 11 of 1996, by which he rejected the application dated 26.3.1997 filed by the petitioner for issuance of a writ of delivery of possession.

(3.) FROM the perusal of the order it does not appear the allegations made by the Decree holder in the subsequent application was denied and dispute by the Judgment -debtor. As stated above no one appears on behalf of J.Dr.opposite party to controvert the grounds set forth by the Degree holder petitioner. In such circumstances, I am of the opinion that the court below has not taken correct approach of law and has failed to exercise its jurisdiction. As noticed above, delivery of possession was effected on 2.3.1997 but a few days thereafter the Judgment debtor with the help of his musclemen forcibly dispossessed the Decree holder from the suit premises. There is nothing on the record to show that the report of the Nazir and the Pleader Commissioner regarding delivery of possession was finally accepted by the executing court and the execution case was disposed of. In such circumstances, the court below ought to have issued writ of delivery of possession in order to give full justice to the Decree Holder. If the view taken by the court below is accepted, then there will be total miscarriage of justice and such decree holder shall be deprived of the fruit of the decree at the hands of the Judgment debtor by adopting the practice of forceful dispossession after the Decree Holder, is put in possession in execution of decree.