SHIV KUMAR SHARMA,J. - (1.) BOTH these cases relate to the execution of a decree as such, are decided by a common order.
(2.) EX parte eviction decree was passed on 14.2.1992 in favour of Smt. Mannaver Begum and against Udai Lal with respect to a shop situated at Ramgarh Mod, Amer Road, Jaipur. Smt. M. Begum put the decree into execution. In compliance of warrant of possession issued by the executing court, the Court Ameen went at the spot and found that Ram Kishore was in the possession of the shop in dispute and was running his grocery shop in the name and style of M/s Mangal Kiryana and General Store. The warrant of possession could not be executed as Ram Kishore resisted it. Court Ameen referred the warrant with his report and sought police help. On the request of Smt. M. Begum, the decree holder, executing court ordered to arrange police help for delivery of possession. Ram Kishore, therefore, moved an application on 25.2.94 under section 151 C.P.C., before the executing court, stating therein that since he had independent title in the shop, he was not bound by the decree and the warrant could not have been executed against him. Smt. M. Begum filed reply to the application on 21.3.94 and prayed for rejection of the said application on the ground that Ram Kishore being sub-tenant, was bound by the decree. In support of the reply Smt. M. Begum filed an affidavit on 5.8.1994.
(3.) ON 2.9.94 Ram Kishore moved another application and, prayed that reply dated 21.3.94 and affidavit dated 5.8.94 filed by Smt. M. Begum may be treated as application under order 21 Rule 97 C.P.C., and the matter be investigated and adjudicated according to law.;