- (1.) THE landlord-revision-petitioner obtained an ejectment order against Manmohan Singh respondent No. 2, tenant in respect of the shop in question on 4-8-1981. Execution petition was filed for delivery of possession on 31-3-1982 and warrants of possession were duly issued. Bailiff went to the spot and reported on 8-6-1982 that the judgment-debtor was not in possession of the demised premises and it was Smt. Yashoda Devi respondent No. I who was in possession thereof. Smt. Yashoda Devi respondent No. 1 filed an objection-petition on the next day, alleging that the eviction order obtained by the decree-holder was a collusive one and that she was in possession of the premises as an owner and was, thus, not bound by the eviction order. The decree-holder filed a reply that earlier respondent No. 1 had filed a suit regarding the property in dispute and that suit was ultimately dismissed by the Additional District Judge on 28-10-1980. Out of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the executing Court: 1. Whether Yashoda Devi is the owner in possession of the property in dispute? OP Objector
(2.) WHETHER the objection-petition is maintainable? OP Objector
(3.) WHETHER the earlier suit by the objector has already been dismissed? If so, to what effect? OP DH 2. Issues 1 and 3 were discussed together. The executing Court came to the conclusion that no evidence had been led either by the objector or the decree-holder if the shop in question was a part of either property unit No. 268 or 269 1/2. It was further found that there was no other evidence to prove the ownership of Smt. Yashoda Devi. Both the issues were, therefore, decided against the objector. Issue No. 1 concerned with the maintainability of the execution petition. The executing Court held that Smt. Yashoda Devi was found to be in possession of the demised premises and she could not be dispossessed therefrom under the impugned eviction order to which she was not a party. Thus, the objection-petition was accepted and it was held that the decree-holder was not entitled to get possession from the objector under the present ejectment order. 3. The landlord-decree-holder has challenged the order of the executing Court vide this revision petition.;