Vineet Saran - (1.) -This case has a chequered history. The facts as enumerated below will go to show that the respondent No. 3 has been abusing the process of law for the last more than two decades and despite having lost from all Courts, he is somehow managing to remain in possession of the property in dispute. Taking advantage of the technicalities of law, he has till date, succeeded in depriving the petitioner of the fruits of the decree in his favour.
(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that a property situate at Lohata Bazar, Sadabad Gate, Hathras was owned by Shadi Lal, the grand father of the petitioner, and after his death, the petitioner Nand Kishore Sharma, son of Natthoo Ram became its owner and landlord. THE respondent No. 3 Mahesh Chand was the tenant of a portion of the said property. In the year 1970, one Sri Thakurji Maharaj Virajman Bagicha filed a Suit No. 36 of 1970 against the petitioner and others, including Mahesh Chand. In the said suit, a prayer for declaration was made that Nand Kishore (the petitioner in this case) did not have proprietary right or any right to realise rent of the property in dispute as Shadi Lal had died issuesless. After contest, the suit was dismissed by judgment dated 4.9.1971, against which an appeal was filed which also dismissed by the District Judge, Aligarh on 11.5.1977. This Court also, on 28.11.1977, dismissed the second appeal filed challenging the aforesaid judgments. Since the respondent No. 3 was the tenant of the property in dispute and he had defaulted in payment of rent, as such the petitioner filed a suit for ejectment of the said respondent No. 3 from the shop in question. The said Suit No. 113 of 1978 was decreed on 6.3.1981. Against the judgment and decree, the respondent No. 3 Mahesh Chand filed a revision before the District Judge, Aligarh, which was dismissed on 28.5.1981. Challenging the said orders, the respondent No. 3 filed a Writ Petition No. 7762 of 1981 which was also dismissed on 15.9.1981, and while dismissing the writ petition, this Court made the following observations : "The petitioner shall, however, not be evicted from the premises in dispute till 30.6.1982 provided he deposits the entire decretal amount and rent, etc. due upto 30.6.1982 by 15.11.1981."
(3.) IT is however, not disputed that the respondent No. 3 did not deposit the decretal amount, nor did he vacate the shop in question. The petitioner, thereafter, initiated execution proceedings against the said respondent No. 3 which was registered as Execution Case No. 22 of 1981. The respondent No. 3 contested the execution proceedings and it has been alleged that he filed false affidavits. He also filed a false affidavit alleging that a compromise had taken place. However, on denial by the petitioner that any compromise had taken place, the application was dismissed. Against such order, the respondent No. 3 filed a Writ Petition No. 432 of 1990 in this Court which was also ultimately dismissed on 6.3.1991 and this Court found that the respondent No. 3 had miserably failed to prove that there was any valid compromise. Dilatory tactics and filing of frivolous objections by the respondent No. 3 in the execution proceedings did not end here. The respondent No. 3 having failed to prove that a compromise had been arrived at between the parties, filed a Misc. Application under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside the decree passed in Suit No. 113 of 1978 which was being executed. This was registered as Misc. Case No. 2 of 1990. In this application, for the first time, the respondent No. 3 came up with the case that the petitioner Nand Kishore was the son of Sri Chand and not Natthoo Ram. In this application, the respondent No. 3 had himself described the petitioner Nand Kishore as son of Natthoo Ram. The respondent No. 3 then moved an application for correction/amendment praying that the father's name of Nand Kishore may be changed/amended as Sri Chand instead of Natthoo Ram, which was rejected on 12.8.1991. A similar amendment application was again filed which was rejected on 17.12.1991 and thereafter, a third amendment application was also rejected on 8.1.1992.;