BABU LAL Vs. RAJ KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition filed under Sec. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure by Babu Lal (a stranger to the decree), seeks setting aside of the order dated 15. 12. 1992 alleged to have been passed ex-parte against him and in favour of the decree-holders. THIS has been claimed through the application dated 17. 12. 1992. The order challenged in the revision is dated 31. 1. 1994.

(2.) BRIEFLY, deceased decree-holder Shyam Lal Saxena filed a suit for specific perfromance of an agreement to sale against deceased Smt. Bhoori and deceased Prabhu Lal on 5. 10. 1966. The suit was decreed on 18. 10. 73 in pursuance to which the court executed the sale-deed on 9. 12. 80, which was registered on 28. 1. 1981. This was the suit in respect of a house situated in Ballabh Bari, Kota. The decree for specific perfromance became final. Thereafter, the decree holder applied for police aid for getting possession in pursuance to the decree. Police aid was given by the order of the court below.

(3.) CONSIDERING the scope of Order 21 Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Allahabad High Court in Nisar Ahmad v/s Addl. Distt. Judge,azamgarh (1) held that a person like the petitioner, who was not a judgment-debtor, had to surrender possession to the decree holder and thereafter may initiate such proceedings as was advised. In the present case, admittedly, possession of the house was not delivered by petitioner Babu Lai, hence, the objection filed was not maintainable. During the course of argument, the petitioner stated that unless the order for dis-possession was passed, no order could be passed under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC.