Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 1143 (MP)

Akbarali v. New Laxmi Transport Service

2000-10-16

S.B.SAKRIKAR

body2000
Short Note The applicants-decree holders have directed this Revision against the order dated 23.6.99 passed by IVth Civil Judge Class II, Indore, in Civil Execution Case No. 758A/85-97. Thereby allowing the application filed by the judgment debtor-non-applicant u/s. 18(3) of the M.P. Accommodation control Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'). Briefly stated the facts of the case are that plaintiff applicants have obtained a decree of eviction against the non-applicant on the ground of requirement of the suit accommodation for rebuilding u/s 12(1)(h) of the Act. In compliance of the said decree, the non-applicant judgment-debtor reserving his right to reoccupy handed over the possession of the suit accommodation to the applicants. The applicants (landlords) failed to commence the work of rebuilding and failed to complete the work in a reasonable and specified time. As such, the non-applicant/judgment-debtor filed an application before the Executing Court u/s 18(3) of the Act for redelivery of the possession of the suit accommodation vacated by the non-applicant tenant. The said application was opposed on behalf of the applicants. The Executing Court, on considering the application filed on behalf of the non-applicant, allowed the same and ordered for issuance of warrant for restoration of the possession. Aggrieved the applicants have filed this Revision against the impugned order of the Executing Court. Right at the threshold, an objection on behalf of the non-applicant was raised with regard to the maintainability of the Revision against the impugned order of the Executing Court. The learned counsel for non-applicant submitted that the order passed by the Executing Court under the provisions of section 18(3) of the Act is covered under the definition of the decree. As such, the order impugned is appealable as decree and the revision filed by the applicant is not maintainable. The learned counsel relied on the decision of Full Bench of this Court in case of Bhagwan Singh Ramcharan v. Mst. Kallo Maula Shah and others ( 1977 JLJ 516 = 1977 MPLJ 583 ) as also on the decision of this Court in case of Babulal v. Krishnabai reported in (1982 MPRCJ 30). The counsel also submitted that he has filed certain documents in this petition indicating that the petitioner has also filed an appeal against the impugned order before the appellate Court and the said appeal is pending for disposal. The counsel also submitted that he has filed certain documents in this petition indicating that the petitioner has also filed an appeal against the impugned order before the appellate Court and the said appeal is pending for disposal. In view of the aforesaid fact, the revision petition deserves to be dismissed as not maintainable under the law. The counsel for the applicants admitted that the applicant has also filed an appeal before the appellate Court against the impugned order and the said appeal is pending for disposal before the appellate Court. However, he submitted that as the impugned order of the Executing Court was without jurisdiction and illegal as such the revision filed against the said order is maintainable. Having heard the learned counsel for parties and in view of the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in case of Bhagwansingh (supra) relied on in case of Babulal (supra). I am of the opinion that as the appeal is competent against the impugned order of the Executing Court under the law and the same is pending before the competent Court, this revision petition is incompetent and not maintainable in view of the decision of this Court. In the result this revision petition being devoid of any substance or merits and not maintainable under the law deserves the fate of dismissal on the preliminary objection raised on behalf of the non-applicant about the non-maintainability of the revision u/s 115 of the CPC. Consequently, this revision petition, without going into the merits of the case, stands dismissed as not maintainable under the law without any orders as to the costs. Record of the Court below be remitted back immediately.