Vineet Kothari, J. - (1.) THE appellant/objector -Bhanwar Bishnoi son of Shri Dhukal Ram has filed the present second appeal, aggrieved by the rejection of his objections by the two courts below for execution of a decree in favour the defendant/respondent -Ram Kumar son of Shri Janki Ram, in respect of the suit property, a residential house, situated in Old Shivbari Road, Patel Nagar, behind Punjab Poultry Farm, Bikaner against the judgment -debtor -Banney Singh, which was given on rent to Banney Singh under oral agreement on 01.05.1985. The eviction decree was passed by the competent court on 02.06.1997, which became final with the rejection of the first appeal filed by the tenant -Banney Singh.
(2.) INITIALLY , the daughter of the judgment -debtor Banney Singh, Ucchab Kanwar also filed objections under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC, which came to be rejected by the learned executing court, and that order was also upheld by the learned appellate court. Later on, the present appellant -objector Bhanwar Bishnoi filed objections under Rule 21 Rule 97 read with Section 151 CPC, which came to be rejected by the two courts below with the following observations: - - Order dated 22.02.2012 of the learned Executing Court Order dated 09.04.2012 of the learned appellate court: Learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Abhinav Jain vehemently submitted that the rent agreement and the decree was only for the residential house measuring 25 x 30 feet, whereas the objector is in possession of the open land and he has produced various documents before the learned executing court below, like BPL Card, Ration Card, Health Card etc., which have indicated his residence on the said land since long for a period of about 30 years, and in execution of the said decree, he cannot be dispossessed. He also submitted that he was not party to the suit and thus, the decree is not binding upon him. In support of his submissions, he relied upon the decisions in the cases of Union of India v. Ibrahim Uddin & Anr., : (2012) 8 SCC 148, Rajasthan State TPT Corpn. & anr. v. Bajrang Lal, : 2014 DNJ (SC) 285 and Babulal v. Raj Kumar & Ors., : AIR 1996 SC 2050.
(3.) ON the other hand, Mr. Anil Vyas learned counsel for the plaintiff -respondent submitted that the decree is not collusive and the objections of daughter of the judgment -debtor -Banney Singh, Ucchav Kanwar having failed, the present objections filed by the appellant -Bhanwar Bishnoi are absolutely misconceived. Mr. Anil Vyas also submitted that the objector does not live at the place in question and the documents produced by him are of different addresses. He also submitted that the plot of land in question measuring 70 x 70 feet was purchased by the respondent/plaintiff -Ram Kumar and he constructed a residential house on the said land of the aforesaid measurement of 25 x 27 feet and in the execution of the said decree, the objections of his daughter also having been dismissed, the appellant cannot be allowed to question the execution of the said decree. He has also submitted that the findings of facts recorded by both the courts below based on relevant evidence, do not give rise to any substantial question of law in the present second appeal and the same deserves to be dismissed. In support of his submissions, he relied upon the decision in the case of Transmarine Corporation & Ors. v. Zensar Technologies Ltd. & Ors., : 2009 DNJ (SC) 1076.;