OM PRAKASH SAINI Vs. GANGA DEVI MATHUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 18.2.2014 and by the order dated 27.5.2014 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) & Metropolitan Magistrate West, Jaipur Metropolitan. By the former order, the learned Magistrate has dismissed an application filed by the petitioner under Section 151 read with Section 141 CPC; by the latter order, the learned Magistrate has also dismissed the application filed by the petitioner under Section 151 read with Section 152 CPC.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs -respondents No. 1 to 7 filed a suit for recovery of rent and eviction against the defendant -petitioner. During pendency of the suit, the plaintiffs No. 1 to 7 had sold the property in dispute in favour of the respondents No. 8 and 9 by registered sale deed dated 10.2.2000. By order dated 20.9.2001, the learned trial court had impleaded the respondents No. 8 and 9 as plaintiffs in the suit. By judgment and decree dated 13.2.2009, the learned trial court has decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs -respondents No. 8 and 9. Against the judgment and decree dated 13.2.2009, the petitioner filed a first appeal, which was dismissed by the learned first appellate court. Thereafter the petitioner filed a second appeal before this court, which was also dismissed by this court. During the execution proceedings, the defendant -petitioner filed an application under Section 151 read with Section 141 CPC. By order dated 18.2.2014, the learned executing court dismissed the said application. Thereafter the petitioner filed another application under Section 151 read with Section 152 CPC, which was also dismissed by the learned executing court by its order dated 27.5.2014. Hence, this petition before this court challenging both the order dated 18.2.2014 and the order dated 27.5.2014.

(3.) SECONDLY , the petitioner has already paid rent upto 2019. The said rent was not only accepted by the plaintiffs -respondents No. 8 and 9, but was, in fact, withdrawn by them from his bank account. Therefore, the plaintiffs -respondents No. 8 and 9 do not have any right to seek eviction on the ground of default in payment of rental amount.