TANZEEM E SUFIA Vs. BIBI HALIMAN
LAWS(SC)-2002-9-86
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: JHARKHAND)
Decided on
September 03,2002
TANZEEM-E-SUFIA
Appellant
VERSUS
BIBI HALIMAN
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
BRAHMDEO CHAUDHARY VS. RISHIKESHPRASADJAISWAL [REFERRED]SHREENATH VS. RAJESH [REFERRED]
Cited Judgements :-
SUDESH RANI VS. SWETA RANI AND ANOTHER [LAWS(P&H)-2014-11-452] [REFERRED]SRI DILIP KUMAR GHOSH VS. SRI RAVINDRA DEB AND ANOTHERS [LAWS(GAU)-2017-5-53] [REFERRED TO]
NANDALAL GHOSH VS. SAKTIPADA BAG [LAWS(CAL)-2009-7-38] [REFERRED TO]
SUNDAR TIMBER PRIVATE LIMITED VS. MANAKCHAND JAMAD [LAWS(MAD)-2013-8-29] [REFERRED TO]
PADMAJA VS. SAJEEV [LAWS(KER)-2005-3-53] [REFERRED TO]
POOJA GARG VS. SATYA PRAKASH GOYAL AND 3 ORS [LAWS(ALL)-2015-4-480] [REFERRED]
DHARMSHILA DEVI VS. RAHUL SHARMA AND ORS. [LAWS(PAT)-2012-12-49] [REFERRED TO]
R DEVADASS VS. SUBORDINATE JUDGE PONNERI [LAWS(MAD)-2003-8-77] [REFERRED TO]
G Ganesan VS. J Surendran [LAWS(MAD)-2004-12-6] [REFERRED TO]
WAHID VS. MOHD ANWAR [LAWS(ALL)-2009-4-243] [REFERRED TO]
BANWARI LAL ASSOCIATES P LTD VS. BASANTI DEVI FAMILY TRUST [LAWS(ALL)-2006-1-241] [REFERRED TO]
INDIAN OIL CORPORATION VS. SHIV SHANKAR SINGH [LAWS(JHAR)-2004-9-36] [REFERRED TO]
MAYA DEVI VS. LALTA PRASAD [LAWS(SC)-2014-2-37] [REFERRED TO]
C RAGHUNATHA REDDY VS. S RAJASEKARAN [LAWS(MAD)-2011-8-185] [REFERRED TO]
NITYA NAND SINGH VS. ADITYA COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD [LAWS(PAT)-2011-6-37] [REFERRED TO]
KAYALVIZHI VS. S PARTHASARATHY [LAWS(MAD)-2008-7-399] [REFERRED TO]
SAMMI @ GURJEET KAUR VS. RAJESH KUMAR AND 3 OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2018-11-155] [REFERRED TO]
SHISHANT AGARWAL VS. KRISHNA KUMAR AGARWAL [LAWS(ALL)-2005-4-161] [REFERRED TO]
ASHAN DEVI VS. PHULWASI DEVI [LAWS(SC)-2003-11-32] [REFERRED TO]
AMZEL PVT LTD VS. TRUSTEES OF THE PORT OF BOMBAY [LAWS(BOM)-2008-1-305] [REFERRED]
AVANTIKA AGRO SERVICES PRIVATE LTD. VS. JUDGE SMALL CAUSE COURT [LAWS(ALL)-2018-9-203] [REFERRED TO]
ABDUL JABBAR VS. SRI NIWAS GUPTA [LAWS(ALL)-2008-7-55] [REFERRED TO]
JUMAILATH BEEVI VS. RAJEENA [LAWS(KER)-2020-7-371] [REFERRED TO]
NIRDOSH KUMAR VS. VIJAY KUMAR AND ORS. [LAWS(P&H)-2010-9-316] [REFERRED TO]
PADAM SINGH VS. RADHELAL [LAWS(MPH)-2018-3-130] [REFERRED TO]
ACHAL SHARMA VS. VIMLA RANI AND 9 OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2013-10-271] [REFERRED TO]
JASPAL SINGH VS. PUNJAB WAKF BOARD [LAWS(P&H)-2012-7-149] [REFERRED TO]
HAYATKHA ILAMKHA BALOCH VS. DILAVARSINH NARANSINH ZALA [LAWS(GJH)-2019-4-133] [REFERRED TO]
JUMAILATH BEEVI VS. RAJEENA [LAWS(KER)-2020-6-242] [REFERRED TO]
SAMEER DATTATRAYA DESHPANDE VS. KISHOR SHAMRAO JADHAV [LAWS(BOM)-2022-6-241] [REFERRED TO]
SH. RAJEEV AGGARWAL VS. RADHA RANI [LAWS(HPH)-2022-6-113] [REFERRED TO]
ARASA KUMAR VS. NALLAMMAL [LAWS(MAD)-2004-3-136] [REFERRED TO]
HAJI KUNNI KHAN VS. KAPIL AGRAWAL [LAWS(ALL)-2018-9-206] [REFERRED TO]
T.N.V. RAVI KUMAR VS. HABEEB AQEEL BIN MOHMD. JAMAAL ALLAIL [LAWS(APH)-2014-8-66] [REFERRED TO]
SUBHASH CHANDER VS. PHOOLWATI [LAWS(P&H)-2009-4-162] [REFERRED TO]
UNNIKRISHNAN VS. KUNHIVBEEVI [LAWS(KER)-2011-1-116] [REFERRED TO]
MUKESH CHOUHAN VS. RAM PRASAD [LAWS(RAJ)-2006-10-72] [REFERRED TO]
JAI PAL KAMIA VS. MAIN PAL [LAWS(P&H)-2022-4-106] [REFERRED TO]
RAMESHWAR LAL VS. BHANWAR LAL AND ORS. [LAWS(RAJ)-2015-4-95] [REFERRED TO]
MD. MOIUDDIN @ MOIUDIN VS. KASTURBA DEVI AND OTHERS [LAWS(PAT)-2014-1-203] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
Brijesh Kumar, J. -
(1.)Leave granted.
(2.)Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(3.)While issuing notice on 28-9-2001, this Court passed the following order :
"Issue notice limited to the question as to why the petitioner should not be allowed to pursue at least one of the two remedies either to proceed with application under Order XXI, Rule 97 C.P.C. or with civil suit. Until further orders the petitioner shall not be removed from possession in execution of decree."
The brief facts of the case are that the respondent Bibi Haliman and others had filed a title suit No. 8 of 1983 for eviction of the defendants. The suit relates to holding No. 116 (Old)/182 (New) situated in ward No.2 of Giridhih Municipality. The suit was decreed in favour of Bibi Haliman in pursuance whereof the defendants were to handover the possession of suit property to the plaintiff. The decree holder Bibi Haliman and others filed an execution case No.12 of 1984 for obtaining the possession of the premises indicated above. It is said that according to the report of the Nazir dated 26-7-1992, the Judgment debtors No.1 to 6 had vacated the suit premises but judgment debtor No. 7 Siwaitulla son of Kahamatulla had not given the possession and at the time the Nazir went to execute the delivery of the possession he found that Judgment debtor was lying in bed and doctors attending him told the Nazir that Judgment debtor was a heart patient and he should not be informed about the warrant of delivery of possession as it may adversely affect his condition. According to the report, the son of the Judgment debtor told the Nazir that property belongs to Sufi Ashram where Sufi Dhyan Kendra has been established with registration No. 196 Tanzeem-e-Sufia Sufi Sant Ashram, hence the delivery of possession could not be affected. The Judgment debtor No. 7 filed an application under S. 151 C.P.C. on behalf of one Ashok Kumar Gupta, Secretary Tanzeem Sufia. The said application was registered as Misc. Case No. 1 of 1994 by order dated 14-2-1994. The decree holder preferred a Civil Revision No. 125/94R against the order dated 14-2-1994 at the Ranchi Bench of the High Court. The Revision has been allowed on 13-9-1994 and order dated 14-2-1992 was set aside by the High Court observing that the applications dated 3-8-1992 and 12-10-1993, moved on behalf of the objector, a 3rd party, at the stage of execution proceeding when the decree holder had not, despite the report of the Nazir, filed an application under Order 21, Rule 97 CPC, were premature.
(2.)Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(3.)While issuing notice on 28-9-2001, this Court passed the following order :
"Issue notice limited to the question as to why the petitioner should not be allowed to pursue at least one of the two remedies either to proceed with application under Order XXI, Rule 97 C.P.C. or with civil suit. Until further orders the petitioner shall not be removed from possession in execution of decree."
The brief facts of the case are that the respondent Bibi Haliman and others had filed a title suit No. 8 of 1983 for eviction of the defendants. The suit relates to holding No. 116 (Old)/182 (New) situated in ward No.2 of Giridhih Municipality. The suit was decreed in favour of Bibi Haliman in pursuance whereof the defendants were to handover the possession of suit property to the plaintiff. The decree holder Bibi Haliman and others filed an execution case No.12 of 1984 for obtaining the possession of the premises indicated above. It is said that according to the report of the Nazir dated 26-7-1992, the Judgment debtors No.1 to 6 had vacated the suit premises but judgment debtor No. 7 Siwaitulla son of Kahamatulla had not given the possession and at the time the Nazir went to execute the delivery of the possession he found that Judgment debtor was lying in bed and doctors attending him told the Nazir that Judgment debtor was a heart patient and he should not be informed about the warrant of delivery of possession as it may adversely affect his condition. According to the report, the son of the Judgment debtor told the Nazir that property belongs to Sufi Ashram where Sufi Dhyan Kendra has been established with registration No. 196 Tanzeem-e-Sufia Sufi Sant Ashram, hence the delivery of possession could not be affected. The Judgment debtor No. 7 filed an application under S. 151 C.P.C. on behalf of one Ashok Kumar Gupta, Secretary Tanzeem Sufia. The said application was registered as Misc. Case No. 1 of 1994 by order dated 14-2-1994. The decree holder preferred a Civil Revision No. 125/94R against the order dated 14-2-1994 at the Ranchi Bench of the High Court. The Revision has been allowed on 13-9-1994 and order dated 14-2-1992 was set aside by the High Court observing that the applications dated 3-8-1992 and 12-10-1993, moved on behalf of the objector, a 3rd party, at the stage of execution proceeding when the decree holder had not, despite the report of the Nazir, filed an application under Order 21, Rule 97 CPC, were premature.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.