Amitav K. Gupta, J. - (1.) This writ application has been filed by the petitioner seeking direction upon the respondent for quashing the order dated 15.06.2017 (Annexure-7 to this writ application) passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division-I, Jamshedpur, in Execution Case no. 10 of 2016 arising out of Eviction Suit no. 30 of 2001, whereby the Executing Court was pleased to direct issuance of writ of delivery of possession and fixing the case on 15.07.2017 awaiting execution report.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it would be evident from the impugned order that the petitioner had preferred Eviction Appeal no. 06 of 2016 against the decree passed in Eviction suit no. 30 of 2001. That in the meantime, the decree was put into execution and the judgment debtor filed the show cause challenging the execution petition. That the petitioner had also filed the petition for stay of the proceeding in execution case and rejoinder was filed by the respondent. That the matter was posted for hearing on 24.06.2017, as disclosed in the impugned order. It is contended by the counsel that without awaiting the order of the appellate court, the executing court has passed the impugned order which is against the provisions of law. It is argued that in terms of Order XXI Rule 26 of the Civil Procedure Code, the court below should have stayed the proceeding and directed the petitioner to furnish sufficient security for the same. In course of his argument, learned counsel has submitted that the respondent had also filed a case under Section 630 of the Companies Act in which petitioner was acquitted with a finding that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant. That the quarter, which is in occupation of the petitioner, is not in occupation by the petitioner as an employee of Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. i.e., the respondent, on the contrary it has been allotted to him in the capacity of his being an M.L.A., and the issue "whether there exists relationship of landlord and tenant? is yet to be adjudicated in the appeal.
(3.) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent has submitted that the petitioner had earlier preferred W.P.(C) no. 2682 of 2009, which was rejected by this Court on 04.09.2009. Thereafter, the petitioner again filed W.P.(C) no. 1094 of 2010, which was dismissed on 13.05.2010. The petitioner again filed W.P.(C) no. 5113 of 2010, which stood dismissed on 19.09.2011. That the petitioner again filed W.P.(C) no. 6748 of 2011, which was allowed with observation vide order dated 11.12.2012. Thereafter, the petitioner again filed W.P.(C) no. 2546 of 2015, which was dismissed as withdrawn on 17.02.2015. That it would be evident that the petitioner has been invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court, on frivolous and vexatious grounds, only to delay trial and at this stage the petitioner is delaying the execution proceeding for denying the usufruct of the decree to the respondent. That since the eviction suit was filed way back in the year 2001 and the litigation has continued for more than 16 years on account of the writs being filed by this petitioner.;