The court emphasized the validity of the execution case based on the timing of filing and the lack of impact from the pendency of a suit for specific performance of contract.

1. The decree holder is the petitioner against the order dated 29.5.2000 passed by Sri K.K.Mahta, Munsif, Sheikhpura in Eviction Execution Case No. 4 of 1994 by which he has allowed the prayer of the judgment debtor and held that the said execution case is not maintainable.

2. The facts giving rise to the present Civil revision are as follows. The petitioner filed a suit for eviction on the ground of personal necessity under Section 11(1) (c) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the opposite party with regard to suit premises described in the plaint. The suit was tried under the special procedure as provided under Section 14 of the Act and the same was decreed on 21.3.1994. The judgment debtor filed a Civil Revision being Civil Revision No. 803 of 1994 in this Court and a learned Single Judge of this Court by order dated 19.12.1996 having noticed that the question of partial eviction as provided under Section 11(1) (c) of the Act was not considered, called for a finding from the trial Court on the question of partial eviction with a direction to it to send its finding within three months. It appears from the ordersheet of the trial Court that it framed issue and directed the defendant/opposite party to adduce evidence. He did not adduce evidence, on the other hand requested that the plaintiff may be directed to adduce evidence. The said prayer was rejected. The result was that the defendant did not adduce any evidence within the time granted by this Court. The learned Munsif submitted a report to this court to the effect that neither parties ever appeared in its Court nor adduced evidence on the above issue. Taking into consideration the aforesaid fact, the aforesaid Civil Revision application was finally dismissed on 17.7.1997 by this Court, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure-5 to the Civil Revision application. It appears that the order of this Court dismissing the civil revision application was not brought to the court below and it proceeded with the determining of question of partial eviction and by order dated 21.3.1997 decided the aforesaid issue against the defendant/tenant.

3. Once the Civil Revision application was dismissed by this Court, there was nothing left to be gone into by the Court below with regard to question of partial eviction. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the decree holder has succeeded up to this Court. The decree holder has filed a Execution case before the Court below for execution of the decree. The judgment debtor raised objection and prayed that the execution case may be dismissed. The primary grounds taken in the objection are that according to decree which is dated 7.4.1994, the decree was to be executed after two months, but the execution case was filed on 4.6.1994, i.e. before the expiry of the said period and secondly on the ground that the tenant has already filed suit for specific performance of contract against the decree holder with regard to. the same properties. The learned Munsif after having considered the question has allowed the aforesaid objection petition.

4. Before proceeding with the matter, I must state that the impugned order passed by the learned Munsif is confused and it is difficult to find out as to what he wanted to say in the order. The only thing that is to be understood is that he has allowed the petition of the judgment debtor. The judgment debtor has prayed that further proceeding of the execution case be also stayed on the ground of pendency of suit for specific performance of contract. The said execution case cannot be stayed. Even if there would be agreement that does not create any right, title and interest and in case of success in the suit for specific performance of contract, the judgment debtor may get the possession of the land through the process of the Court. On that ground, the execution case cannot be rejected.

5. The other ground is also untenable. The