Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 642 (ALL)

Gyan Prakash Gupta v. Ahmad Maqsood Naquvi

2015-03-30

ADITYA NATH MITTAL

body2015
JUDGMENT Aditya Nath Mittal, J. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and perused the record. 2. This revision has been filed with the prayer to quash the orders dated 19.11.2014 and 04.03.2015, respectively, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Court No.3, Lakhimpur Kheri. 3. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the decree holder had moved the back dated application and no notice was served upon the revisionist.? It has also been submitted that in the proceedings, 25.01.2015 was fixed, but ignoring the said date, the order dated 19.11.2014 and 04.03.2015 have been passed. 4. It has also been submitted that the proceedings were stayed by the Hon'ble High Court with the condition that if in the meantime the revisionist deposits the entire decretal amount and damage upto date within ten days and continued to deposit the monthly rent on the due date, he shall not be evicted till the next date of listing. Therefore, the court should have waited for the result of the revision pending before this Court and the impugned orders are wholly misconceived. 5. As far as the order dated 27.10.2014 is concerned, it was a routine order-sheet in the pending execution case and from perusal of the order-sheet, it does not reveal that the counsel for the present revision was also present. 6. It is not disputed that the said revision was dismissed by this Court by order dated 31.10.2014, therefore, the said interim order had merged in the final decision of the revision. After dismissal of the revision, the decree holder had moved an application before the court for execution of decree and for possession.? It is also not in dispute that the said execution decree has been decided in full satisfaction and the possession has also been handed over to the decree holder. The said execution case was already pending, therefore, there was no requirement to issue notice again and again and the executing court could have proceeded with the proceedings. In the present case, the execution court has proceeded on the ground that the Civil Revision No.139 of 2013 has already been dismissed.? Therefore, the application was allowed and the writ of possession was issued, upon which the decree holder was given possession of the property in suit. In the present case, the execution court has proceeded on the ground that the Civil Revision No.139 of 2013 has already been dismissed.? Therefore, the application was allowed and the writ of possession was issued, upon which the decree holder was given possession of the property in suit. It has also been mentioned in the said order that in the Revision No.139 of 2013, the judgment-debtor had filed the copy of order in the execution case and the judgment-debtor had not filed any objection or any application under Section 47 C.P.C. Therefore, the application (18-Ga) has been rejected by order dated 04.03.2015. No explanation has been given as to why any objection to the execution case or the objection under Section 47 C.P.C. regarding the execution were not filed when the judgment-debtor had full knowledge of the pending execution case. 7. Learned court below has considered all aspects of the matter in detail and I do not find any error of law or perversity in the impugned orders. There is no sufficient ground to interfere with the said orders. The revision is misconceived, deserves to be dismissed. 8. The revision is, therefore, dismissed.