Honble GOYAL, J.–The petitioner-plaintiff has preferred this revision against the order dated 21.4.2000 whereby learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) No. 4, Jaipur City, Jaipur dismissed the execution application.

(2). The relevant facts in brief are that the petitioner instituted a civil suit in January, 1994 against the defendant- non-petitioner No. 1 Municipal Corporation, Jaipur (in short the M.C.) with the averments that disputed plot of land is situated near Ambabari, Jaipur. The petitioner is in possession of that land for the last 30 years and he has acquired title on account of adverse possession. On 29.1.1994 the employees of M.C. came over the land and tried to demolish the constructions made by the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner prayed for a decree of permanent injunction against the M.C. This case was registered as civil suit No. 193/1994.

(3). This case was placed in Lok Adalat on 25.10.1996. The parties arrived at compromise in Lok Adalat and the Trial Court passed a compromise decree in the following terms :-

^^vr% lgefr ds vk/kkj ij okn oknh fo:) izfroknh ckcr fu"ks/kkKk fMØh fd;k tkdj izfroknh dks tfj;s fu"ks/kkKk ikcUn fd;k tkrk gS fd fcuk fof/kd izfØ;k viuk;s ,oa oknh dks lquokbZ dk leqfpr volj fn;s fcuk okn i= ds en ua-1 esa of.kZr oknxzLr LFky esa fdlh izdkj dh rksM QksM dh dk;Zokgh ugha djsa] rFkk oknh ds kkUrh iw.kZ miHkksx esa fdlh izdkj dh ck/kk mRiUu ugha djsaA**

(4). Thus, the M.C. was restrained from demolishing the constructions made over the land under dispute and from making the interference in the peaceful enjoyment and use of it without adopting due process of law and without affording a sufficient opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

(5). On 20.1.1997 the petitioner filed an execution application under Order 21 Rule 11 C.P.C. for execution of the decree dated 25.10.1996 with the averments that the employees of M.C. came over the disputed land and demolished the constructions without giving any notice and an opportunity of hearing. They caused damages to the tune of Rs. 6 lacs. It was also averred that entire activities of demolition were carried out at the instance of non-petitioners No. 2 the Mayor and No. 3 the Commissioner of the M.C. It was prayed that the non-petitioners No. 2 & 3 should be sent to civil imprisonment, the non-petitioners should be directed to pay a sum of Rs. 6 lacs with interest @ 2% per month as damages, to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as monthly damages or they should be directed to reconstruct the building and to hand- over the same to the petitioner. Execution case No. 1/1997 was registered.

(6). Vide reply of this application, the M.C. denied all the allegations and pleaded that the petitioner was trespasser over the land which belongs to the M.C. and the petitioner himself removed his possession and the goods from the disputed land on 2.11.1996. It was also stated in reply that one notice dated 21.8.1996 and the other dated 30.10.1996 under Section 203 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 (in short the Act) were served upon the petitioner but the petitioner failed to reply and appear and thus, the encroachment was removed having followed the due process of law.

(7). After recording the evidence of the parties, the Executing Court i.e. Additional Civil Judge No. 4, Jaipur City, Jaipur vide impugned order dated 21.4.2000 held that the possession of the petitioner over the disputed land was removed by following due process of law. It was also held that the petitioner himself removed his possession and the goods vide Ex.4 dated 2.11.1996 and thus dismissed the execution petition.

(8). I have heard learned counsel for the parties. On the basis of the submissions, following questions arise for consideration :-

(i) Scope of revision under Section 115 C.P.C.

(ii) What is due process of law ?

(iii) Whether due process of law was adopted in the instant case ?

(9). First Point :- A perusal of the provisions of Section 115 C.P.C. makes it clear that the High Court ma

Click Here to Read the rest of this document