SUBHASH CHANDER Vs. PODH RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application to revise the order dated 31st December, 1966 of the Munsiff, Jammu, holding the application, made before him under Section 151, Civil P. C. by Vinod Kumar respondent No. 2 herein, for restoration of possession of the shop mentioned in the application (on the ground that it was not the shop for which the decree for ejectment against respondent No. 1 had been passed) to be maintainable.

(2.) THE facts relevant for the purpose o$ this petition are: - On the 28th April, 1966, an exparte decree for ejectment from a shop situate on B. C. Road, Jammu, was passed in favour of the petitioner against Bodh Raj respondent No. 1. On the execution of this decree being taken out, a warrant for eviction of the judgment -debtor and delivery to the decree -holder of the possession of the shop for which decree had been passed was issued and the Nazir of the .Court was deputed by the Munsiff to deliver possession of the said shop to the decree -holder, On the Nazir making a report that possession of the shop was duly delivered on 2 -8 -1966 on the Nishandehi of Charanjit Lal, the father of the petitioner decree -holder, the execution application was consigned to the records in full satisfaction of the decree, On the 27th September 1966, the respondent No. 2 made an application before the Munsiff Jammu stating that he had been wrongfully and fraudulently deprived in his absence of possession of the shop which had been got on rent from Rajinder Kumar and in which he was carrying on the business of spare parts, that the shop of which possession had been taken away from him by the Nazir of the Court was not the shop for which decree had been passed and praying that mistake be rectified and possession 01 the shop be restored to him.

(3.) THE application was resisted by the petitioner -decree -holder contending inter alia that the decree had been satisfied, that the Court had become functus officio, that the application under Section 151, Civil P. C, was not maintainable and that a separate suit ought to have been brought by respondent No. 2 for possession of the shop.