JAMUNA PRASAD SAH Vs. SHASHI MAHTO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) The opposite parties/objectors had filed an application under Order XXI, Rule 29 and 97 and Section 101 of the Code of Civil Procedure challenging the execution proceedings arising out of the decree passed in Title Execution Case No. 24 of 1997 wherein, admittedly, the respondent objectors were not the parties to the suit. If they wanted to object the execution of the proceedings, it was incumbent upon them to have discussed in their application as to how and in what manner, did they relate and refer to any right, title or interest, that might have vested in them with respect to the property in question. They have not pleaded that they had any right, title or interest in the property, nor did they make any attempt to establish the same with reference to any material evidence showing their possession over the property in question in absence of which the application was not maintainable. In this view of the matter, it was permissible for the trial Court to entertain the application and to permit them to adduce evidence, thus stalling the execution proceedings without any basis or foundation. The impugned order is, therefore palpably wrong and suffers from patent error of jurisdiction.

(3.) For the reasons stated above, this revision application is allowed and the impugned order dated 11.7.2000 passed by the Court below in Title Execution Case No. 24 of 1997 is set aside.