S. Dhavan, J. - (1.) ONE aspect of this writ petition needs to be set on record at the outset. The petitioner Sarvajit Singh, respondent no. 3 Ram Lagan Singh and respondent no. 4 Ram Ugrah Singh are brothers ; all sons of Ram Sewak Singh. The issue is, thus, between the brothers.
(2.) SARVAJIT Singh, petitioner, alleges that his brother Ram Gagan Singh, respondent no. 3 is a trespasser on a shop upon which the petitioner is a tenant of Sahakari Ganna Vikas Samiti. Apparently, there must have been differences between the brothers that occasioned an action by way of a suit by SARVAJIT Singh, petitioner seeking possession of the shop with the relief that possession may either be delivered to him or Ram Ugrah Singh, respondent no. 4 who had been arrayed as defendant no. 2 in the suit. In effect, it comes down to this : that the two brothers desired possession of the shop by seeking eviction of the other brother Ram Lagan Singh, respondent no. 3. In the suit which had been filed by the petitioner, an exparte decree dated 27th March 1987 was obtained. The possession of the premises was wrested from Ram Lagan Singh, on the execution of the exparte decree. Ram Lagan Singh, respondent no. 3, defendant no. 1 in the suit resisted the exparte decree and moved an application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Code, hereinafter referred to as the Code, in effect, taking a plea that the judgment which occasioned the exparte decree was obtained by fraud and collusion The Munsif set aside the exparte decree by his judgment of 19th November 1985. This is Annexure 2 to the Writ petition. The petitioner moved the District Judge, Ghaziabad in revision, being dissatisfied that the exparte decree which he had obtained, had been recalled. The revision was heard by the 6th Additional District Judge, who, by his order of 18th December 1985 affirmed the judgment of the Munsif, in effect, holding that the exparte decree had rightly been recalled. The exparte decree having been recalled and the order of the trial court being confirmed in revision, Ram Lagan Singh, respondent no. 3 and defendant no. 1 in the suit sought restitution under Section 144 of the Code, by seeking possession of the premises in controversy in the suit.
(3.) THE petitioner as plaintiff filed objections upon the restitution sought. After hearing the parties the Munsif by his order of 3 February 1986, granted restitution. THE petitioner-plaintiff challenged the order granted restitution before the District Judge, Ghaziabad, in appeal. THE appeal was heard by the 3rd Additional District Judge, who by order dated 25 April 1986 affirmed the Munsif's order by which restitution under Section 144 of the Code had been permitted. Against the order, in effect, permitting restitution, the present writ petition has been filed though, the petitioner has challenged all the orders, passed against him by which the exparte order was recalled and restitution ordered.;