- (1.) Heard Sri Chandrashekhar and Sri R.P. Mishra, learned counsel for applicant and Sri B. Dayal, learned counsel for contesting respondents No.1 & 2, plaintiffs.
(2.) This revision is directed against order dated 01.02.2013 passed by A.D.J., Court No.1, Aligarh in Civil Misc. Case No.25 of 2012, Rajeev Kumar Agarwal Vs. Raghubir Prasad and others under Section 47, C.P.C. in Execution Case Nos.1 & 2, both of 2012 arising out of O.S. No.280 of 1992, Sri Raghubir Prasad and Sri Hari Govind Vs. Sri Harish Chandra and 39 others. In the suit, preliminary decree was passed on 26.10.2012 and final decree was passed on 02.02.2012. Thereafter, two execution applications were filed numbered as Execution Cases No.1 & 2, both of 2012, by the plaintiffs. Through the impugned order objections under Section 47, C.P.C. filed by applicants were rejected. In the objections under Section 47, C.P.C., two points were raised. One was that plaintiff No.2, Hari Govind had no locus standi to represent the trust and that the decreed by the court was not executable as provision of Section 11 of Court Fees Act had not been complied with. Original plaintiffs were father and son. The relief claimed in the suit and decree was against defendant No.2, Sri Rajeev Kumar son of Harish Chandra (Harish Chandra was defendant No.1, who died during pendency of the suit). In this revision applicant No.1 has been shown to be Harish Chandra (deceased), hence in fact this revision is only by applicant No.2, defendant No.2, Rajeev Kumar.
(3.) The suit was decreed by A.D.J./ Special Judge, Gangster Act, Court No.3, Aligarh on 26.10.2010 only against defendant No.2, applicant in this revision directing him not to damage or alienate the property in dispute. Defendants No.10 to 40, who were tenants were directed not to pay the rent to defendant No.2 but to deposit the same in court. Plaintiff No.2, Hari Govind was appointed as trustee of the trust at the place of defendant No.2 and it was also directed that until finalisation of trust scheme, plaintiff No.2 must elect two persons out of defendants No.3 to 17 to manage the trust. Defendant No.2 was directed to hand over the management of the trust to plaintiff No.2. Defendant No.2 was also directed to submit the accounts of the property in dispute from 1967 till the date of the decision. It was also directed that a proper scheme be framed for running the trust.;