JUDGMENT:- Before going to the disputed facts, it will be necessary to point out certain facts which are admitted or not in dispute.

2. The plaintiff - Mrs. K. P. Bharucha filed RAE Suit No.1240 of 1977 for eviction and possession of one of the two garages situated at plot No.1 10, 30th Road, TPS III. Bandra, Bombay-50 against the original defendant - Abdul Rehman Pirsaheb. It was contended that the garage was let out to the defendant by the plaintiff's husband. The eviction was sought on several grounds, including failure to pay the arrears of rent inspite of notice.

3. The suit was contested by the original defendant and the suit came to be decreed by the judgment dated 1.10.1991. The original defendant preferred Appeal No.157 of 1991. Pending that Appeal, the original defendant-appellant died and his legal heirs who are respondents before this Court, were brought on record. They prosecuted that appeal. However, by the judgment dated 20.1.1995, that appeal was also dismissed. The Appeal Court granted time to vacate the garage upto 30.6.1995. However, being not satisfied, the appellants preferred Writ Petition No.1725 of 1995 challenging the decree for eviction and possession. That Writ Petition came to be dismissed on 11.8.1995. Thereafter, the said appellants filed Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court. That Special Leave Petition was also dismissed in September. 1995 and thus, the decree for eviction and possession became final. After the decree had become final, the original plaintiff - decree holder assigned the suit garage in favour of the applicant Nos.1 to 3. The execution petition was filed on 24.8.1995 by the original decree holder. However, in the Execution Petition, names of the respondents who were appellants were not shown as the judgment debtors. In the Execution Petition, description of the suit property was given as motor garage, North Side, situated on plot No.110, 30th Road, TPS III Bandra. Bombay 50 of entrance from 24th Road. ON the basis of that Execution Petition, warrant of possession as issued on 30.8.1995. With the help of the police, the warrant was executed and possession of the suit garage was given to the decree holder.

4. After execution of the aforesaid decree, the respondents, who were on record in the Appeal and who had also filed Writ Petition as well as Special Leave Petition, filed an application under Section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code challenging the execution of the decree mainly on two grounds. Firstly, on the warrant of possession, name of decreased defendant No.1 was shown but the names of the L.Rs were not shown and thus decree was executed without showing the names of the L.Rs of the original judgment debtor and secondly, in the bailiff's report, it as mentioned that possession of two garages was taken. The application was contested by the original decree holder as well as the applicants Nos.1 to 3, who had taken possession of the suit garage after execution of the decree on the basis of assignment in their favour. According to them, the property was rightly described and possession of only suit garage was taken and not of two garages. It was contended that the possession of the suit garage was taken from the L.Rs. of the original judgment debtor and no injustice is caused to them because the decree had become final against them.

5. After hearing the parties, the learned Executing Court allowed the application filed by the L.Rs. of the original judgment debtor who are the respondents before this Court and set aside the execution of the decree and directed restoration of possession of the suit premises to the respondents. Being aggrieved by that order, the original decree holder and the three assignees have preferred the present Appeal.

6. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. Perused the relevant record as well as the impugned order.

7. Admittedly, the plaintiff/decree bolder was having 2 garages and deceased defendant occupied only one of the two garages.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document