GOVIND DAS Vs. BABU LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed against the order of the Additional Civil Judge No.1. Jodhpur dated 19-12-1990 by which he has stayed the proceedings in the execution case No.7/89 Govind Das Vs. Dayaram till the disposal of the Misc. Case No.6 of 1990, Babulal Vs. Govind Das. The facts of the case giving rise to this revision petition may be summarised thus.

(2.) In the year 1973, the plaintiff-Govind Das filed a suit for ejectment against the defendant Dayaram. It was decreed on March 13, 1984. Appeals preferred by the defendant were dismissed. Execution application No. 7/89 was moved by the plaintiff-decree-holder. The objector Babulal moved an application under Sections 47,151 and Order 1, Rule 10, C.P.C. stating that the decree-holder has agreed to sell the suit property to him for Rs. 85,000.00, he has paid Rs. 70,000.00 in advance to him, he has delivered its possession to him and he has executed an agreement for sale in his favour. He also stated that Rs.90,000.00 has also been paid by him to Ajgar Khan and Aslam Khan who had purchased the suit property from the judgment-debtor Dayaram through sales deed dated 26-6-1985. The objection-petition was registered as Misc. Case No. 6/90. He also moved an application for the stay of the execution proceedings. The decree-holder filed his reply to the said objection petition and stay application stoutly traversing all their allegations and stating that the objector has no locus standi to file objection petition and stay application. After hearing the parties, the learned Additional Civil Judge No.1. Jodhpur has stayed the execution proceedings by its order under challenge.

(3.) It has been contended by the learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner that the order of the learned Additional Civil Judge No. 1, Jodhpur is without jurisdiction, the objector Babulal was not a party in the suit, he is a stranger in the execution case, and he cannot, therefore, invoke the provisions of Sec. 47, C.P.C. He further contended that the attention of the learned Additional Civil Judge was specifically invited towards the decision of this Court given in Madanlal Vs. Hansraj, AIR 1985 Raj. 19 and he did not care to refer it in his order under challenge and follow it. He also contended that the objector's case that the suit property has been sold by the judgment-debtor to Ajgar Khan and Alam Khan and they have in turn sold it to the objector Babulal is of no consequence as he being successor-in-title of the judgment-debtor is bound with the decree which has been passed against the judgment-debtor Day a Ram. He also contended that the story of the objector that the decree-holder has agreed to sell the suit property for Rs. 85,000.00 to him (objector), he accepted Rs. 70,000.00 from him and he has executed an agreement for sale in his favour is totally false, no agreement has been executed in his favour, he never agreed to sell the suit property and the agreement for sale set up is a forged document and these facts were not at all disclosed by him to the sale-amin when he went to execute the warrant for delivery of possession on 3-10-1989. He relied upon Madan Lal Vs. Hansraj (supra) and Smt. Sri Devi Vs. Kashiram, 1984 R.L.R. 121 and 1988 (1) W.L.N. 330.