Hon'ble BHANSALI, J.—This revision petition under Section 115 CPC is directed against the order dated 20.2.2003 passed by the executing court, whereby objections filed by the petitioner under Section 47 read with Section 151 CPC have been dismissed.

2. Brief facts of the case may be noticed thus: the respondent-decree-holder filed Civil Original Suit No. 164/1980 on 16.10.1980 seeking eviction of the petitioner-tenant from the suit premises and for arrears of rent. The suit was filed on the ground of default in payment of rent, denial of title and reasonable and bonafide necessity under the provisions of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950 (`the Act of 1950'). The suit was set ex-parte against the petitioner-defendant on 27.7.1983 and the same was decreed ex-parte on 27.8.1983. While passing the judgment, the learned trial Court noticed the fact of the suit being proceeded ex-parte against the defendant and thereafter held as under:-

^^oknh us ,d izkFkZuk i= bl vk'k; dk is'k fd;k fd og vius c;ku tfj;s 'kiFk i= is'k djuk pkgrk gSA vr% mls 'kiFk i= is'k djus dh vuqefr iznku djkosA bl ij vuqefr iznku dh x;hA oknh us vius c;kuksa esa okn esa vafdr rF;ksa dh iqf"V dh gSA izfroknh us u rks oknh ds dFkuksa dk [k.Mu fd;k gS vkSj u gh viuh izfr j{kk esa dksbZ lk{; is'k dh gS ,slh n'kk esa oknh dk okn lkfcr gSA

vkns'k

vr% tfj;s ,d i{kh; fu.kZ; ;g fMØh ikfjr dh tkrh gS fd&

¼1½ izfroknh fooknxzLr edku dks [kkyh dj mldk [kkyh dCtk oknh dks lqiqnZ djsaA

¼2½ izfroknh oknh dks p<k gqvk fdjk;s dk Hkqxrku djsaA

¼3½ izfroknh oknh dks okn O;; dk Hkqxrku djsaA**

3. It appears that thereafter an application under Section 152 CPC was filed by the decree-holder on 9.11.1984, which was accepted and decree was amended on 1.12.1984. An application for execution of the decree dated 27.8.1983 (as amended on 1.12.1984) was filed by the respondent-decree-holder on 15.5.1996 and the same was numbered as Execution Case No. 16/1997.

4. On 1.2.1999, the objection was filed by the petitioner to the executability of the decree dated 27.8.1983, inter-alia, on the ground that mandatory provisions of Section 13 of the Act of 1950 have not been followed, inasmuch as, the satisfaction of the Court on any of the grounds enumerated in the said section have not been recorded. Besides raising other objections it was claimed that the Execution Application filed on 15.5.1996 was barred by limitation.

5. The objections raised by the petitioner were replied to by the respondent and it was inter-alia submitted that the decree was executable and as the suit filed by the petitioner for setting aside the decree dated 27.8.1983 has been rejected on 28.9.1996, the decree was executable. No appeal has been filed from the judgment and decree dated 27.8.1983 and, therefore, now it is not open for the petitioner to question the validity of the judgment and decree passed by the court in execution proceedings. It was claimed that as the decree was amended, the limitation will be reckoned from the date of amendment and not from the date of original decree, therefore, the execution application was within limitation.

6. The learned trial court after hearing the parties by the impugned order dated 20.2.2003 came to the conclusion that the petitioner has failed to point out as to which provision of law has not been complied with while passing the judgment and decree dated 27.7.1983 and the execution of decree cannot be stopped. Further the learned executing court was also of the opinion that if the decree was a nullity or against the law, the petitioner had right to file appeal and the suit filed against the said decree already stands rejected. Consequently, the objections filed by the petitioner were rejected.

7. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the order impugned passed by the learned executing court is ex-facie against the settled position of law and as such, the same deserves to be set-aside. It was submitted that the judgment and decree dated 27.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document