SAYED NOMAN AHMED Vs. RAM KISHORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE real litigation starts after the decree, is a saying in the legal circles which explains the pain of the decree holder in the execution of the decree. Long periods, repetitive and unsustainable objections and delay in judicial process itself adds insult to the injury and the decree holder even after winning the suit remains a loser. THE present case is a glaring example of this phenomenon.

(2.) THE plaintiff decree holder Ram Kishore adopted son of Shri Hanuman Bux holds a decree of eviction dated 13-9-1976 for seeking eviction of suit premises, a dilapidated portion of residential house most of which has been converted into land simply by rains and non maintenance and the said decree has not been executed even after two rounds of execution application and the matter reaching upto High Court in the meanwhile. THE judgment debtor, the petitioner in the present revision petitions Mr. Sayed Noman Ahmed, an Advocate practising in Sikar is the objector in the execution application. THE judgment debtor being a practising Advocate explains the part of the story which follows.

(3.) AS against this, Mr. R. K. Mathur, learned counsel appearing for the respondent decree holder submitted that it is indeed unfortunate that a decree of 1976 has remained unexecuted for so long and despite concession of the judgment debtor even before this Court in 1987, no portion of the suit premises has been handed over to the decree holder as yet. He further pointed out that on the other hand the judgment debtor has filed applications on more than one occasion before the learned executing court that he has no objection to hand over the possession of the vacant land over which the constructed part had fallen due to rains to the decree holder. He produced before this Court a certified copy of the application dated 23-5-1992 signed by the judgment debtor Mr. Sayed Noman Ahmed, Advocate, Sikar and he submitted that more than one such application were filed before the court although the judgment debtor had no intention to hand over the possession either of the vacant land or the three rooms as conceded before this Court way back in 1987. He further submitted that nor mesne profits or arrears of rent has been paid by the judgment debtor.