BALKISHAN BANSAL Vs. CHANDRA PRAKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this revision petition, the petitioner (judgment debtor) has challenged the order dated 18. 4. 2000 of the Civil Judge (JD) Ajmer (West) in execution Case No. 12/95 whereby application of the plaintiff (decree holder) moved under Section 152 CPC was allowed.

(2.) THE suit of the plaintiff was decreed by the trial Court on 30. 9. 82, against which the first and second appeals preferred by the defendant (petitioner) were dismissed. S. B. Civil Second Appeal No. 227/96 was dismissed by this Court on 27. 3. 97. THE first as well as second appellate courts after taking into consideration oral and documentary evidence of the parties, had arrived at the conclusion that the defendant was since his licensee, the plaintiff is entitled to the vacant possession of the suit property and thereby plaintiff's suit was held to be rightly decreed by the trial Court. This Court in aforesaid second appeal held that since both the courts below have recorded concurrent findings of fact, no question of law muchless substantial one was involved. However, this Court directed that in case the defendant furnishes an undertaking before the trial court to the effect that he would hand over peaceful vacant possession of the suit property to the plaintiff within six months, execution of the decree should remain stayed for aforesaid six months. THEreafter instead of handing over the peaceful vacant possession of the suit property to the decree holder, the judgment debtor filed objections to the execution of the decree before the executing court by raising objections inter alia that the decree was not executable because portion sought to be vacated in defying the decree was different than what was actually required to be vacated. His case is that the premises sought to be vacated was on the ground floor instead of first floor as mentioned in the warrant of possession issued by the executing court and the bailiff had expressed his inability to execute the decree. Notwithstanding the plaintiff decree holder moved to the court on 22. 2. 99 to direct the bailiff to get delivery of the possession of the suit premises the process was desisted by the judgment debtor with a view to frustrate execution of the decree. THEreupon the executing court appointed a Commissioner who submitted his report alongwith site plan. It is only thereafter that the executing court by its impugned order has allowed decree holder's application by directing the bailiff to deliver possession of the suit premises in compliance of the decree.