Shamsher Bahadur, J. - (1.) THIS is an execution second appeal of the judgment -debtor founded solely on the technical plea that the executing Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the matter in controversy.
(2.) IT was on 13th of May, 1955, that the order, which is now sought to be executed, was passed for eviction of the Appellant, Raj Mechanical Industries, Ludhiana, from the suit premises at the instance of the landlords, Ram Sarup, who is now represented in this appeal by Respondents 1 to 3 as his legal representatives, and Baldev Singh, Respondent No. 4. The application for execution was made to the Senior Subordinate Judge, Ludhiana, sometime in 1957. It may be observed at this stage that under Section 17 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter called the Act): Every order made under Section 10, or Section 13, and every order passed on appeal under Section 15, shall be executed by a Civil Court having jurisdiction in the area as if it were a decree of that Court. Neither the filing of the application for execution nor its entertainment by the Senior Subordinate Judge, Ludhiana, has ever been -challenged. The order for ejectment from the building No. B -V -1348 in Madhopuri was made under Section 13 of the Act on 13th May, 1955. While the execution application for recovery of premises was still pending, the decree -holder thought it necessary to bring a suit on 1st of February, 1962, for recovery of arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 3,815 in the Court of Shrimati Harminder Kaur, Subordinate Judge. The District Judge, Ludhiana, acting under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure transferred both the execution application and the suit for trial before Shrimati Harminder Kaur as a common question was involved, this being the plea raised by the judgment -debtor -Appellant that a fresh settlement had been reached between the parties bringing into existence a new tenancy between the parties. The Court of the Subordinate Judge overruled the plea of adjustment and dismissed the objections of Raj Mechanical Works filed under Order 21, Rule 2, Code of Civil Procedure, holding that the order of the Rent Controller of 13th May, 1965, was executable. The two appeals filed by the Appellant were dismissed by the District Judge on 11th of June, and so also in further appeal by the High Court on 15th April, 1966.
(3.) THE decree -holder then moved an application on 18th March, 1967, for restoration of his previous application. This was done in the Court of Shri Hardyal Singh, which was the successor Court of Shrimati Harminder Kaur. As no action appears to have been taken on this application the decree -holder felt impelled to submit a fresh application on 2nd of May, 1967, for the same purpose. It had transpired that the original file was not traceable. The Court of Shri Hardyal Singh issued warrant of possession against the judgment -debtor Appellant who then filed the objection which is the subject -matter of the present appeal. The point was taken that the Court of Shri Hardyal Singh, which had been abolished and succeeded by the Court of Shri Mewa Singh to whom the proceedings were transferred by the District Judge, Ludhiana, had no jurisdiction. As many as four issues were framed on the pleadings of the parties but the only surviving question for determination is whether the Court of Shri Mewa Singh had jurisdiction to try the execution application, being a successor of the Court of Shrimati Harminder Kaur. Shri Mewa Singh dismissed the objection raised by the judgment -debtor on 15th of January, 1969, and this order having been upheld in appeal by the learned District Judge, Ludhiana, on 24th March, 1969, the judgment -debtor has come again in appeal to this Court.;