PRAKASH ASNANI Vs. TIKAMDAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a second appeal under Section 100, CPC. Arguments on the question of admission heard.

(2.) TIKAMCHAND son of Laxmibai obtained eviction decree in Civil Suit No, 6-A of 19% against Kishanchand and in execution proceedings of that decree applicant Prakash Asnani submitted an application under Order 21 Rule 97, CPC, expressing his intention to resist the execution of the decree on the ground that Laxmibai, the owner of the house, has let out the suit shop to him as per rent-note dated 22-4-1999 and since then he is in possession of the shop. Laxmibai denied the execution of this rent-note. After an inquiry the executing Court has held by order dated 7-3-2001 that this rent-note is not genuine and Laxmibai has not let out the shop to the applicant and it is still in possession of Kishanchand. That order has been upheld in first appeal under Section 96, CPC. According to Order 21 Rule 103, CPC an order made after adjudication under Order 21 Rule 98, CPC has been given the force of a "decree" and has been subjected to the same conditions as an appeal as if it were a decree. The Appellate Court has also directed prosecution of appellant Prakash Asnani by the Executing Court after following the procedure for filing complaint under Section 195, Cr. PC. This is now the second appeal by appellant Prakash Asnani.

(3.) DURING the course of the hearing of this appeal on the question of admission, the learned counsel for the appellant has confined his arguments relating to that part of the order by which the First Appellate Court has directed prosecution of the appellant and has not challenged the remaining part relating to the rejection of the objection of the appellant to the execution of the decree.