- (1.) Notice was directed to be issued to opposite party No. 1 to show cause why she be not punished for committing contempt of this Court by failing to vacate Ganga Bhavan situated at Naka Hindola Crossing, Lucknow despite undertaking given by her Counsel in writ petition No. 9147 of 1988. No notice was issued to opposite parties 2 and 3 since they could not be said to have committed contempt.
(2.) Opposite party No: 1 filed her return and the applicant has filed reply thereto. I had heard the learned Counsel for the parties on 11th September, 1992 and orders were reserved which are being given hereunder. The brief facts may be noted. The applicants allege that they are owners - landlords of the said building Ganga Bhavan. One late Sri Sarjoo Prasad husband of opposite party No. 1 was the tenant in one shop in the said building. Late Gangasharan, husband of applicant No. 1 and father of applicants 2 and 3 filed a suit for ejectment being Suit No. 16 of 1969 in the Court of Munsif South, Lucknow for the ejectment of the said Sri Sarjoo Prasad from the shop. The suit was dismissed by the learned Munsif, Lucknow by a Judgment dated the 14th May, 1971. The Late Gangasharan filed an appeal against the said Judgment which was Civil Appeal No. 296 of 1971. It was transferred to the Court of Civil Judge, Mohanlal-ganj, Lucknow. The learned Civil Judges by a judgment dated 28-4-1972 allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree, passed by the learned Munsif, South, Lucknow. Against the said judgment and decree, Sarjoo Prasad filed second appeal in this Court which was numbered as second Appeal No. 300 of 1974. During the pendency of the Appeal Gangasharan also died. His heirs were not got substituted. Hence Second Appeal was dismissed as having abated on 6th August, 1975.
(3.) Thereafter the applicants moved an application for execution being Execution Case No. 7 of 1984. Objections under Section 47, C.P.C. were filed by present application No. 1 and it was registered as Misc. Case No. 32 of 1985. The objection inter alia was that the decree has become non est and was not executable. The said objections were however rejected by the Munsif South, Lucknow and the execution case proceeded. Against the rejection of the objections opposite-party No. 1 filed a revision before the District Judge, Lucknow on 13-2-1978 being Civil Revision No. 34 of 1987. After hearing the parties the revision was dismissed on 15-12-1989 against which opposite-party No. 1 filed a writ petition in this Court and through an interim order the execution proceedings were stayed. The writ petition was registered as W. P. No. 9147 of 1988. By a judgment dated 15-12- 1989 a learned Single Judge of this Court dismissed the writ petition. In the said judgment the operative portion reads as under: "For the reasons here-in-above the writ petition is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed. Learned Counsel for the petitioner undertakes that he will vacate the possession of the house in question just after completion of three months from today and deliver the possession to the opposite-parties 3 to 5 and also pay the damages for use and occupation during the said period to opposite parties 3 to 5. Learned Counsel for the opposite parties 3 to 5 has no objection to the said suggestion. . In case the petitioner does not vacate the premises within three months from today, opposite parties 3 to 5 shall have a right to execute the decree but this benefit would be available to the petitioner if she either pays to the petitioner (sic) or deposits the damages for use and occupation of the aforesaid period.";