BHAGWAT NARAYAN DWIVEDI Vs. KASTURI D/O RAMDAYAL A N M CIVIL DISPENSARY MORENA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Bench has been constituted to hear this revision on a reference made by mr. Justice Raina, because, in his opinion, the following question deserves to be decided by a Division Bench. "whether the executing Court is bound to consider the application of a person in possession where he was not a party to the decree before he is dispossessed ?"

(2.) FACTS material for this reference are that Kasturibai (respondent No. 1) obtained equivalent Citation: an ex parte decree for arrears of rent and ejectment against Yuvraj Singh (respondent No. 2) in respect of a house. To execute the warrants for possession and attachment, the Nazir went to the house on August 22, 1972. He could not deliver possession and made a report to the Court complaining, inter alia, that one bhagwat Narayan claimed to be in possession of the house and refused to vacate it, unless there was an order against him. He claimed to be the tenant of one sushilabai. When the decree-holder was asked to take possession, Bhagwat narayan obstructed. There was apprehension of breach of the peace. Therefore, neither possession could be taken, nor attachment could be effected. The Nazir recommended that Police aid to be requisitioned.

(3.) ON August 28, 1972, Bhagwat Narayan made an application to the executing court stating that he is the tenant of Smt. Sushilabai; that no one by name yuvrajsingh is in the occupation of the house; that an ex parte collusive decree appears to have been obtained against some Yuvrajsingh in order to harass the objector; and that on the basis of that collusive decree, the decree-holder is making an endeavour to dispossess him. He further alleges that the decree-holder brings goondas and threatens him. He prayed that until his objection was decided, the proceedings for possession be stayed and that he should not be dispossessed. This objection was supported by an affidavit. The decree-holder opposed the application contending that it was not maintainable and that he has no legal right of any kind.