TARA CHAND Vs. SHRIMATI DARSHAN KAUR
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
SHRIMATI DARSHAN KAUR
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) This revision petition filed by Tara Chand has arisen in the following circumstances : The respondent Shrimati Darshan Kaur brought a suit against Charan Dass and Dev Raj for their ejectment from a shop which they had taken on lease from her and obtained a decree of ejectment in February, 1956. Both parties appealed against the decree which also concerned standard rent, their appeals being dismissed on the 7th of March, 1957, and a revision petition filed by Charan Dass and Dev Raj was also dismissed in limine in this Court on the 19th of March, 1957.
(2.) Thereafter Shrimati Darshan Kaur instituted proceedings for delivery of possession but it was reported by the Bailiff that resistance to delivery of possession had been offered by two men, Tara Chand and Mulkhraj. In these circumstances the decree-holder applied to the court for police assistance in obtaining possession. Thereafter Tara Chand filed applications under section 151, Civil Procedure Code on the 1st of June and on the 17th of August which were dealt with by the order now challenged in revision. In these applications he applied to be allowed to oppose the decree-holder's application for police assistance and also claimed that nothing further should be done until an application under Order 21 Rule 97 had been decided. Actually there was no such application pending and Tara Chand's applications were dismissed.
(3.) It appears that the basis of the alleged resistence offered by Tara Chand petitioner and Mulkh Raj was an allegation that they were partners along with Charan Dass and Dev Raj in a business called Messrs. Charan Dass Dev Raj carried on in the premises and they claimed not to be bound by the decree for ejectment. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that before any further steps are taken to secure possession of the premises for the decree-holder the procedure provided in Order 21 Rule 97 and the following Rules must be followed, and even if the decree-holder has refrained from filing an application under Order 21 Rule 97, she should be ordered to do so.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.