Hon’ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani, J.—Heard Sri K.M. Garg, learned counsel for the landlord-decree holder.

2. As per office report dated 14.3.2018, notice upon the respondent No. 1 has been served on 24.2.2018. Thus, service of notice upon the respondent No. 1 is deemed sufficient. No one has appeared on behalf of the respondent No. 1.

3. Briefly stated facts of the present case are that the landlord-decree holder/petitioner filed SCC No. 10 of 2008 (Vijay Kumar Agarwal v. Subhash Chand and Haji Mundi @ Mahood Ali) on 24.4.2008 for eviction of the defendant-judgment debtor/respondent from the tenanted house bearing Municipal No. 103, Ward No. 5, Gali Ganga Sahai, Town Loni, Tehsil and District Ghaziabad. This house was originally owned by decree holder’s father Sri Dharam Pal who died on 23.3.1993 and the said property was inherited by his heirs being the decree holder and three daughters. It was alleged in the plaint that the defendant-judgment debtor/respondent No. 1 has defaulted in payment of rent. It appears that subsequently the Defendant/respondent No. 2 herein occupied the house as sub-tenant. In the aforesaid suit, both the defendants have appeared. As per order-sheet entry dated 21.7.2009, the judgment-debtor/respondent No. 1 appeared and the next date was fixed for 11.8.2009 for written statement. On 11.8.20009, the defendant-judgment debtor/respondent No. 1 received a copy of the plaint. On 21.10.2009, he sought adjournment. Again on 17.11.2009, 8.12.2009, 8.2.2010 and 23.2.2010, he filed adjournment applications being Paper No. 30ga, 32ga, 33ga and 36ga respectively. The adjournment applications being Paper No. 30ga, 32ga and 33ga were allowed on the relevant dates and the case was adjourned. The adjournment application being Paper No. 36ga filed on 23.2.2010 was rejected and the file was directed to be put up on 9.3.2010 on which date the judgment-debtor/respondent No. 1 became absent. Consequently, the case was directed to be proceeded ex parte. After the evidences were led by the plaintiff-decree holder/petitioner herein, the case was fixed for argument on several dates and lastly it was decreed by judgment dated 9.9.2011 and the decree dated 14.9.2011. Thereafter, the decree-holder/petitioner filed an Execution Case No. 3 of 2012. During pendency of the execution case, the aforesaid sub-tenant namely Sri Haji Mundi @ Mahmood Ali filed Applications 3ga and 5ga under Order IX Rule 13 read with Section 151 C.P.C. alongwith Application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act being Misc. Case No. 20 of 2014 (Haji Mundi @ Mahmood Ali v. Vijay Kumar Agarwal), which was rejected by the Judge Small Cause Court, Ghaziabad by order dated 29.10.2014, as under:

^^izLrqr ekeys esa ;g Lohd`r rF; gS fd izkFkhZ@izfroknh@ fu.khZr _.kh us iquZLFkkiu izkFkZuki= izLrqr djrs le; mDr izkfo/kku ds vuqikyu gsrq dksbZ izkFkZuki= izLrqr ugha fd;k gSA izkFkhZ us iquZLFkkiu izkFkZuki= izLrqr djus esa gq, fcyEc ds lUnHkZ esa tks vius izkFkZuki= esa Li"Vhdj.k fn;k gS] og Hkh i;kZIr ugha gSA mDr fcyEc {kE; fd;s tkus ;ksX; ugha gSA blds vykok izkFkhZ us vius iquZLFkkiu izkFkZuki= 3x esa ewy okn esa vuqifLFkr jgus ds lUnHkZ esa tks Li"Vhdj.k fn;k gS] og Hkh i;kZIr ugha gS rFkk mlls eSa lUrq"V ugha gwaA

bl izdkj rF;ksa ds fo'ys"k.k ds ifjisz{; esa bl fu"d"kZ ij igqWprk gwa fd foi{kh@oknh@ fMØhnkj ds fo}ku vf/koDrk ds rdZ cy;qDr gSa rFkk izkFkhZ@izfroknh@fu.khZr _.kh ds fo}ku vf/koDrk ds rdZ cyghu gksus ds dkj.k izkFkZuki= 3x ,oa 5x fujLr fd;s tkus ;ksX; gSA

vkns'k

izkFkhZ@izfroknh@fu.khZr _.kh dk izkFkZuk i= 5x vUrxZr /kkjk 5 fe;kn vfèkfu;e rFkk izkFkZuk i= 3x vkns'k 9 fu;e 13 ,oa /kkjk 151 lhŒihŒlhŒ fujLr fd;k tkrk gSA

i=okyh nkf[ky nrj gksA**

4. Thereafter, the judgment-debtor/respondent No. 1 herein filed an Application dated 21.8.2014 under Order IX Rule 13 read with Section 151 C.P.C. on the only ground that he could get the information about judgment dated 9.9.2011 when the respondent No. 2 Haji Mundi @ Mahmood Ali told him abou