RAJIV SHARMA, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Mushtaq Ahmed Siddiqui, appearing for the petitioners and Sri S. P. Shukla, appearing for the contesting respondents.
(2.) PETITIONERS have filed a suit (Regular Suit No. 10/1963) for possession of land by demolition of the structure thereon and recovery of arrears of rent and damages for use and occupation. The said suit was decreed by the erstwhile Court of Civil and Sessions Judge on 15.2.1965. The decree dated 15.2.1965 was challenged by Rajendra Prasad alias Nageshwar Prasad and others before this Court by filing an appeal which was numbered as Appeal No. 3/65 and this Court confirmed the decree in respect of some plots and as regards other plots the same was set aside. Feeling aggrieved by the dismissal of the appeal by the High Court, said Rajendra Prasad alias Nageshwar Prasad and others preferred Special Leave Petition No. 2143 of 1982 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court after hearing the parties dismissed the appeal vide judgment and order dated 30.7.1982. However, it provided that the eviction shall not be executed before the end of April, 1983 on the condition that the respondents-petitioners shall hand over the vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises to the landlord on or before the end of April, 1983. It was further provided that the respondent shall clear the arrears of rent and shall also pay compensation for use and occupation of the suit premises month by month.
(3.) IT has been pointed out by the counsel for the petitioners that during the pendency of Appeal No. 3/65 before this Court, plaintiff No. 2 (Mian Saifullah Shah) expired. In the judgment, the name of legal heirs were to be substituted but inadvertently the name of the petitioner No. 2 alone was substituted by the order dated 24.4.1980 and as such an application for correction was moved and the necessary correction could be made only after the passing of order dated 5.12.1991. Thereafter, the petitioner moved an application for execution of decree on 14.12.1992 in good faith before the Court of 1st Additional District Judge as the decree was passed by the Civil and Sessions Judge, to which opposite party Nos. 1 to 4 filed objections on 11.8.1995 stating therein that the Court of Additional District Judge has no jurisdiction to execute the decree and also the said objections were filed after three years. The Additional District Judge vide order dated 21.2.1997 held that the application for execution was not maintainable before the Court of Additional District Judge and directed for return of the execution application for presentation before the appropriate court.;