PUKHRAJ Vs. RAMWATI BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN both these revision petitions common question of law and facts arise, as such, both are being disposed of by a common judgment.

(2.) SHRI Nathmal instituted a suit in the court of Munsiff, Ajmer City and prayed that the defendant, Onkar Lal and his son Ghasi Lal should be ejected from the shop. Ejectment decree was passed on 18. 9. 61.

(3.) ;g fd dctk ckeqftc fm h fm hnkj dks en;quku ls fnyk;k tk;** He submits that in pursuance of the said application the warrant was issued and the possession of the first floor was delivered to the plaintiff-decree-holders. He submits that because of the weeding of the records, the proceedings of the execution and the report of the Nazir who went on the spot is not available. He submits that on 17-5-83 Pukhraj and others submitted an application and they have mentioned therein about the delivery of the possession of the first floor. Mr. Agrawal has also submitted that in the memo of appeal filed by the present non-petitioners who are the legal representatives of Nathmal, it has been mentioned that on 21-7-63 appellant went with the warrant for the possession. It was also stated therein that the respondent-dependant vacated the portion of the property on the first floor and requested to vacate the shop.