S.N.Srivastava, J. - (1.) The applicant, Smt. Somwati, has preferred two revision applications one against the impugned judgment and order dated 15.1.2005/ 20.1.2005 in Application filed under Section 47, C.P.C. filed in Misc. Case No. 23 of 2004 which stems from O.S. No. 47 of 1981 and the other against the judgment and order 15.1.2005/20.1.2005 passed in application under Order XXI, Rules 12 and 14 of the C.P.C. filed in Misc. Case No. 23 of 2004 arising out of O.S. No. 47 of 1981 attended with the prayer to call on the respondent to produce evidence about Gopal Singh Kushwaha being authorized as Manager of the respondent-Kagaz Udyog.
(2.) The dispute in the matter before this Court pertains to property owned by plaintiff namely, Hast Nirmit Kagaz Udyog Sahkari Samiti Limited Godha Wazirganj District Badaun. The plaintiff instituted suit No. 47 of 1981 for the relief of dispossession of the respondents and also for mandatory injunction to remove construction situated on the land in question. The suit property is displayed in the plaint map and is marked by signary ABCDEFGHIOJKMA. The suit aforestated culminated in judgment and decree rendered on 10.8.1990. From a perusal of the decree (Anenxure 1 to the writ petition), it would transpire that the decree was passed in relation to land marked by Ext. BCDEGHIO and PB against defendants 1/1 to 1/3 and defendant No. 3. !n the wake of decree, execution case Mo. 1 of 2004 came to be filed by the decree holder and it would appear that the same was instituted for possession in relation to entire land involved in the plaint i.e. ABCDIKA. An objection was filed on behalf of applicant under Section 47 C.P.C. on the ground that she was not a party to the proceeding in the suit and as such the decree cannot be executed against her. It was further prayed that the decree-dated 9.8.1990/20.8.1990 was not sustainable in law and cannot be enforced in implementation as against her. On the other hand, the decree holder preferred objection to that application. In the ultimate analysis, the application of the applicant climaxed with dismissal vide impugned judgment and order and it is in this backdrop that the present revisions have been preferred.
(3.) The learned Counsel for the applicant canvassed that the applicant was not a party to the suit and therefore, the decree rendered is a nullity and cannot be executed against her. It was further canvassed that albeit the fact that the decree was passed in relation to a part of the land involved in the suit, the execution was wrongly sought against the entire land and as such execution was liable to be dismissed. The learned Counsel further submitted that the application of the applicant, which was initially preferred to be under Order XI, Rules 12 and 14 of the C.P.C., was, in effect, intended to be under Order XXI, Rule 97 of the C.P.C. and the same may be treated as such and further that it was clearly maintainable and rejection of the application by execution Court is vitiated in law.;