- (1.) In pursuance of the public notice issued by this Court inviting the litigant to come and argue his/her own case as the learned members of the Bar are abstaining from work, Mr. Govind Narayan, the petitioner, is present before the Court.
(2.) Mr. Govind Narayan has pleaded that unnecessarily the executing court has framed nine issues including the issue of relief. However, most of these issues are already covered by a decision of this Court, wherein this Court has already given a judicial finding that the original tenant was Suresh, thereby implying that Hanuman Sahai Sharma is a subtenant. In light of this judicial finding given by this Court, according to Mr. Govind Narayan, many of the issues could be deleted. Therefore, the learned judge has erred in rejecting his application for deletion of the issues.
(3.) On the other hand Mr. Hanuman Sahai Sharma, respondent No.2, has pleaded that even if there is a judicial finding, the issues do survive as framed by the learned executing court. Therefore, he has supported the impugned order.;