JAI SINGH RAWAT Vs. DARGAH COMMITTEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Execution Second Appeal has been filed by the appellant-objector (for short, 'the objector') against the judgment dtd. 15/10/2016 passed by Addl. District Judge No.1, Ajmer (for short, 'the Appellate Court') in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 10/2015 (130/2015), whereby the Appellate Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the order dtd. 29/9/2015 passed by Civil Judge City (West) Ajmer (for short, 'the executing court') dismissing the objection filed by the objector under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC with a cost of Rs.3000.00.

(2.) Facts of the case are that Dargah Committee filed a suit for eviction and recovery of rent against Ram Niwas Singhal and others, wherein Ram Niwas Singhal was stated to be the original tenant and Hanuman Singh Rawat as his sub-tenant. The said suit was decreed on 7/9/1982. Aggrieved thereby, Ram Niwas Singhal filed a Civil Regular Appeal No. 144/85 (179/82) before the Appellate Court, which was dismissed vide judgment dtd. 17/7/2004. Being aggrieved, two S.B. Civil Second Appeal Nos. 452/2004 and 418/2004 came to be filed by wife and sons of Hanuman Singh Rawat (including the father of the objector) and son of Ram Niwas Singhal respectively, which were dismissed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dtd. 24/5/2005. Thereafter sons of Hanuman Singh Rawat filed objections under Sec. 47 readwith Sec. 151 CPC, which were dismissed by the Executing Court vide its order dtd. 18/5/2007. Subsequently, daughters of sub-tenant Hanuman Singh Rawat filed objections under Order 21 Rule 97 readwith Sec. 47 CPC, which was dismissed by the Executing Court vide its order dtd. 18/5/2007, against which Civil Execution First Appeal No. 46/2007 came to be filed, which was dismissed vide order dtd. 21/7/2008. Being aggrieved by the same, S.B. Civil Execution Second Appeal No. 4/2008 was filed, which was also dismissed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dtd. 17/9/2008. Thereafter legal representatives of sub-tenant Hanuman Singh Rawat filed objections under Order 21 Rule 23 readwith Sec. 47 and 151 CPC, which came to be dismissed vide order dtd. 28/11/2008, against which S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 159/2008 was filed, which was also dismissed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dtd. 22/12/2008. Thereafter, the objections under Sec. 47 readwith Sec. 151 CPC were filed by the legal representatives of Hanuman Singh Rawat, which came to be dismissed by the Executing Court vide its order dtd. 11/7/2014. The legal representatives of the Hanuman Singh Rawat also filed an application under Sec. 151 CPC, which was also dismissed by the Executing Court vide order dtd. 26/4/2014, against which S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5525/2014 was filed, which was dismissed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dtd. 23/5/2014. Now the objections under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC have been filed by the grand son (objector) of the sub-tenant Hanuman Singh Rawat before the Executing Court mainly on the ground that he is in possession of shop no. 37 at Station Road, Ajmer since the year 1976 in which he is running the business in the name and style of 'Ganpati Kisan Agro Service'. It was also averred that the objector was doing business in the said shop during the life time of his father and after his death, the objector is doing the said business. The decree holder is not entitled to get possession of shop no. 37 pursuant to the eviction decree, which was passed in Suit No. 224/1972 in relation to shop Nos. 38 and 39 only. The objector who is in possession of shop no. 37 is not bound by the decree dtd. 7/9/1982 passed in Civil Suit No. 224/1972, nor he can be evicted from said Shop. Therefore, the objector be not evicted from the shop no. 37 on the basis of decree dtd. 7/9/1982 passed in Suit No. 224/1972.

(3.) The decree holder filed reply to the said objections, wherein it was averred that the objections filed by the objector are barred by the principle of res-judicata and therefore, the same are not sustainable in the eye of law. It was also averred that on 15/7/2006, Narendra Singh Rawat, father of the objector and others had filed objections under Sec. 47 readwith Sec. 151 CPC, where same objections were taken, which were dismissed by the Executing Court vide order dtd. 18/5/2007, against which no writ petition was filed before this Court and the said order attained finality. It was further averred that against the judgment and decree dtd. 7/9/1982 passed by the trial court, sub-tenant did not file any appeal and legal representatives of sub-tenant directly filed S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 452/2004 before this Court, which was dismissed vide judgment dtd. 24/5/2005. Thereafter again on 28/7/2008, Narendra Singh (father of the objector) and others filed objection under Order 21 Rule 23 readwith Sec. 47 and 151 CPC, which was dismissed by the Executing Court vide order dated on 28/11/2008 with a cost of Rs.1000.00, against which S.B. Civil Civil Revision Petition No. 159/2008 was filed before this Court, which was dismissed vide order dtd. 22/12/2008. It was also averred that Smt. Raj Kumari, Smt. Maya and Smt. Hemlata, aunts (Bhua) of Objectors also filed objections under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC, wherein the dispute with regard to details of decreed property was raised and Objector's aunt claimed to be in possession of the suit property, which were dismissed by the Executing Court vide its order dtd. 18/5/2007. Against the said order dtd. 18/5/2007, aunt of the objectors and others filed Civil Execution First Appeal No. 46/2007, which was dismissed by the Appellate Court vide judgment dtd. 21/7/2008. Thereafter the objector's aunt and others filed S.B. Civil Execution Second Appeal No. 04/2008 before this Court, which was also dismissed vide judgment dtd. 17/9/2008. In the last, it was prayed to dismiss the objections.