Honble GUPTA, J.–In this case vide order dt. 28.5.97 show cause notice was ordered to be issued and the record of the trial court was ordered to be summoned. While so issuing notice, the proceeding pending in the learned court below was stayed till further orders. Thereafter, after service was effected, vide order dt. 25.4.98 the revision petition was admitted. Then when the matter came up for consideration of the stay petition, vide order dt. 3.4.2000 the record of the main execution petition was also requisitioned. After receipt of the record the case was finally taken up on 27.7.2000 and that day with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties instead of considering the stay petition, the main revision itself was taken up for hearing which was concluded on 1.8.2000.

(2). By this revision the decree holder assails the order of the learned Executing Court dt. 28.3.97 whereby the learned court below dismissed the petitioners application filed under Sec. 11 read with Sec. 141 and 151 C.P.C. holding that the objection petition filed by the present non-petitioners is not barred by principles of constructive res judicata.

(3). The case has a chequered history even for the purposes of decision of the present controversy which cannot be avoided from being briefly recapitulated.

(4). It is way back on 31.10.80, unfortunately for the petitioner, a decree for eviction happened to be passed against one Shivdas s/o Shri Narayandas Ji Sad. This decree was put in execution in the year 1981 vide Execution Petition No. 16 of 1981, as the things had it the original judgment-debtor Shivdas expired and the house came into possession of the person named in the present execution application being Shanti widow of Shri Shivdas, Om Prakash S/o Shri Shivdas, Shyama S/o Shri Shivdas, Bhanwari W/o Shri Ganeshdas, Lala S/o Ganesh Das, Chinu S/o Shri Ganesh Das who according to the decree-holders were the legal representatives and heirs of the judgment debtor Shivdas and in the possession of the decreed premises, consequently the present execution application was filed by the petitioner on 10.4.89.

(5). On filation of this execution, vide order dt. 21.4.89 notices were ordered to be issued against the persons sought of the proceeded against, under Order 21 Rule 22 C.P.C. fixing 28.7.89 as the next date. On this date Shir Vijay Singh Choudhary entered appearance on behalf of Ramesh, then on 17.11.89 Shri Choudhary filed Vakalatnama on behalf of some more judgment debtor and gave undertaking to file Vakalatnama on behalf of some more judgment debtor and gave undertraining to file vakalatnama on behalf of the rest of the judgment-debtors. The case thereafter went on being adjourned from dates after dates for filing Vakalatnama, and so also for reply to the said notice under Order 21, Rule 22 C.P.C. However, when no reply was filed, on 22.2.91 warrant under Order 21, Rule 35 C.P.C. was ordered to be issued. Thereafter on 12.7.91 one Shri S.M. Singhvi appeared for the judgment-debtor and wanted time to file reply. However on the next date again nobody appeared for judgment-debtor and the warrant was ordered to be issued for delivery of possession.

(6). It was on 22.4.1993 that a part of the decree was executed, inasmuch as some part of the premises were physically delivered to the judgment-debtor.

(7). It so further happened that a regular civil suit was filed by some of the judgment-debtors inter alia seeking to contend the property to be their ancestral property and attempted to trace the title by giving the pedigree table. In that suit temporary injunction applications were also filed then civil misc. appeals were also filed on behalf of the widow and sons of Ganeshdas which appeals were dismissed on 26.9.96. Against dismissal, a revision petition was filed before this Court being S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 999 of 1996, wherein at admission stage and without notice to the present petitioner, vide order dt. 27.11.96. This Court (Honble R.R. Yadav, J

Click Here to Read the rest of this document