Prakash Tatia, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties.
(2.) THE petitioner has challenged the order dt. 26th October 2005 passed by the Executing Court in Execution Case No. 7/05 on 26th October 2005 the Executing Court allowed the decree -holder 's application under Order 21 Rule 32 CPC and directed the petitioner to reinstall the booth at the place for which the respondent decree -holder obtained the decree in Civil Original Suit No. 91/97 on 25th October 1999. Brief facts of the case are that plaintiff non - petitioner filed suit for injunction and sought relief against non -petitioner defendant that the nonpetitioner defendant should not remove the plaintiff 's booth situated on particular location given in the plaint having measurement of 8 'x6'. The suit was decreed and petitioner was restrained from removing booth without following due process of law. The non -petitioner submitted in the application under Order 21 Rule 32 CPC that despite injunction decree, the petitioner has removed non -petitioner 's booth on 15th March, 2005.
(3.) PETITIONERS submitted reply and took a plea that petitioner has not removed the booth from the place which was disclosed in the plaint by the non -petitioner. It is submitted that the non -petitioner installed another booth at different place and that was removed after service of notice in accordance with law. It is also submitted that even removal of cabin of the non -petitioner is from the disputed place, even then it was removed after due notice and by compliance of the provisions of law, therefore, the Court below committed error of fact as well as error of law in allowing application of non -petitioner filed under Order 21 Rule 32 CPC.;