DEPUTY MANAGER BISCOMAUN Vs. HARDEO PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners have approached this Court by filing the civil revision application against the order dated 27.8.2004 passed by the Sub Judge -I, Hilsa (Nalanda) by which the prayer of the petitioners to dismiss the Execution Case No. 1 of 1999, on the ground that it is not maintainable and barred by the law of res judicata, has been rejected.

(2.) THE brief facts of this case are that the opposite party had filed a petition for fixation of fair rent before the House Controller being B.B.C. Case No. 9 of 1983 -84 in which the Controller determined the fair rent of the premises at Rs. 1800.00 per month by order dated 28.9.1987. Thereafter the opposite party filed an application before the Controller for passing necessary order directing the petitioners to pay the rent so fixed by the Controller and the same was directed by the Controller to be paid within one month from the date of receipt of the order. Thereafter the opposite party filed an Execution Case being Execution Case No. 2 of 1992 before the Sub Judge -I, Hilsa (Nalanda). The petitioners appeared and filed an objection in the said execution case contending that the order passed by the Controller is not a decree and as such the Execution Case was not maintainable. It was further contended that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to proceed with the Execution Case for the recovery of fair rent determined by the Controller. It was also informed that the premises was vacated on 29.2.1992 and the entire dues had been paid. After hearing the parties by order dated 12.9.1995, the learned Sub Judge -I, Hilsa (Nalanda) dismissed the execution case.

(3.) AGAIN in the year 1999 the opposite party filed another execution case on the same point, against the same order and with the same prayer being execution Case No. 1 of 1999 in the Court of Sub Judge -I, Hilsa, (Nalanda). The petitioners filed rejoinder in the said execution case stating that it was not maintainable since the matter was finally decided by this Court and the same was upheld by the Supreme Court but ignoring the said stand by order dated 25.9.2000 the court below dismissed the rejoinder filed on behalf of the petitioners on the point of maintainability of the execution case holding that the case of the opposite party is on this same footing as that in the decision reported in 1999 (1) PLJR 362. Admittedly, the said order was not challenged by approaching the higher forum and again the petitioners filed a petition under Secs. 11 and 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure taking the plea that the execution Case No. 1 of 1999 is not maintainable either on fact or on law and is barred by law of res judicata. However, by the impugned order dated 27.8.2004, the said petition has been rejected on the ground that earlier also the similar objection of the petitioners had been rejected on 25.9.2000.