R.H.Zaidi, J. - (1.) BY means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner challenges the validity of order dated 4.11.2000 passed by the II Additional District Judge, Kanpur Nagar rejecting the application No. 13C in Execution Case No. 1 of 2000. The facts of the case giving rise to the present petition, in brief, are that Satnam Singh, the respondent No. 3 filed S.C.C. Suit No. 6 of 1999 against M/s. Jagan and Company for ejectment from the shop in dispute and for recovery of arrears of rent on the ground of default. The suit was contested by the said defendant. The trial Court after going through the evidence on the record produced by the parties in support of their cases, decreed the suit on 27.5.2000. Challenging the validity of the said order, M/s. Jagan and Company filed a revision in this Court. The said revision was dismissed by this Court by judgment and order dated 22.8.2000. The operative portion of the said judgment is quoted below: Learned counsel for the revisionist Shri Atul Dayal urged that the disputed accommodation is a shop, hence some time may be allowed to vacate the premises to which Shri Vikram Nath, learned counsel for the respondent has no objection. The revisionist is allowed six months time to vacate the premises in dispute provided he files an undertaking before the Court below within a period of two weeks from today that the shall hand over vacant possession to the respondent after expiry of the six months period. The revisionist shall also pay rent on the same rate as he was paying earlier for the period during which he remains in occupation of the premises in dispute. Subject to the aforesaid observation made above, the revision fails and is accordingly dismissed.
(2.) AFTER dismissal of the said revision, the decree -holder, respondent No. 3 applied for execution of the decree. The said application was registered as Execution Case No. 1 of 2000. In the execution case, the petitioner, Mohan Das Seth filed an objection under Section 47, C.P.C., contending that actually, he was the tenant of the shop in dispute and not M/s. Jagan and Company, the execution case was, therefore, liable to be dismissed In the same case, petitioner also filed an application, which was numbered as 13C2, praying that before proceeding further, notices be issued to respondent No. 4. The said application was objected to and opposed by the decree -holder, respondent No. 3 Satnam Singh. The Court below dismissed the application filed by the petitioner by its judgment and order dated 4.11.2000. Hence, the present petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently urged that it was necessary to hear respondent No. 4 in the execution case. The Court below, therefore, acted illegally in dismissing the application filed by the petitioner, the impugned order passed by the Court below was, therefore, liable to be set aside.
(3.) I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and also perused the record.;