MANGILAL Vs. JAGANNATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE circumstances that gives rise to this revision may briefly be stated thus: Mangilal applied for reinstatement under sec. 7 Rajasthan (Protection of Tenants) Ordinance, 1949 against Jagannath and Shri Kishan in the Court of the Assistant Collector, Kotah in respect of the land in dispute on 6-5-53. After necessary enquiry the trial court ordered reinstatement in favour of Mangilal on 1-8-53. Mangilal applied for execution of this order on 5-8-53 and was put back in possession over the land in dispute on 8-8-53. On 26-5-54 Mangilal present an application before the S.D.O. Kotah alleging that the revision application filed by Jagannath before the Board of Revenue against the order of reinstatement passed in favour of Mangilal by the Assistant Collector on 1-8-53 has been rejected, but his apprehensions were that Jagannath might interfere with his possession hence an injunction ought to be issued against him to restrain him from so interfering. On 9-8-54, an order was passed on this application directing Mangilal to be put in possession of the land in dispute. It appears that in compliance with this order Jagannath was dispossessed and possession was handed over the Mangilal on 24-8-54. On 6-9-54 Jagannath appeared before the S.D.O. and raised objections to the proceedings taken out against him. His main contention was that the order of reinstatement having once been executed on 5-8-53, it was not open to the court to order a subsequent execution of the same order. If Mangilal was dispossessed subsequently he should have brought separate and fresh proceedings under the Ordinance. THE learned S. D. O. examined the record and as can be gathered from his order dated 29-9-55, the absurdity of his order, dated 9-8-54 became clearly manifest to him. He has however observed that the order dated 9-8-53 was the result of some collusion between the Mangilal's counsel and the Reader of the Court. He therefore cancelled the same and passed a fresh order on 29-9-54 to the effect that no second execution of the order dated 1-8-53 can be taken out as it has been executed once. Mangilal has come up in revision against this order.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the parties were heard on the last date of hearing. To ascertain the real state of of fairs as regards the execution proceedings carried out on 8-8-53 the execution file was sent for. It is before us today and has been carefully examined by us THE learned counsel for the applicant or the applicant himself have not though it fit to put in appearance before us today It is clear from the record that the order dated 1-8-53 was fully and completely executed on 8-8-53, Mangilal was given possession of the land in dispute and he execrated a supurdnama for the case. THE lower court was, therefore, perfectly justified in holding that a subsequent execution was absolutely uncalled for. An order once executed cannot be executed a second time. If authority be needed for this view, it may be found in A.I.R. 1935 Calcutta 245 and A.I.R 1931 Calcutta 427. THE validity of the lower court's order, therefore, is not open to any challenge.