Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kesho Ram Dev Raj And Ors. vs Om Parkash And Anr. on 22 December, 1997
Equivalent citations: (1998)118PLR401
JUDGMENT Sat Pal, J.
1. This petition has been directed against the order dated 26th September, 1997 passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Hissar. By this order, the learned Civil Judge has granted one opportunity to the petitioner/objector to lead their evidence for the purpose of proving their right as a tenant in the suit premises.
2. The only objection raised by Mr. Atul Lakhanpal, learned counsel appearing for the objector is that the learned trial court ought to have framed issue and there after granted the Opportunity to the objector to lead evidence. In support of his sub mission, the learned counsel has placed reliance on 2 Single Bench judgments to this court in Charanjit Singh v. Manmohan Singh (1989-1)95 P.L.R. 494 and UCO Bank v. Mittal Brothers, 1997(2) P.L.J. 119.
3. Mr. Jaswant Jain, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, however, submits that in the present case after the respondent landlord was unsuccessful before the learned rent Controller and the appellate authority, filed Civil Revision Petition No. 648 of 1996 which was allowed by this court vide order dated 15th September, 1996 and by this judgment the ejectment order was passed. He further submits that the tenant Dev Raj challenged the aforesaid judgment dated 15th September, 1996 in the Supreme Court and the S.L.P. filed by the tenant Dev Raj was dismissed on 6th January, 1997. He further submits that the objection petition has now been filed by the objectors who are sons of the tenant. He submits that even the decision of the Civil Judge dated 26.9.97 was challenged by the tenant Dev Raj and his son who are objectors, in a civil suit and that suit has since been dismissed on 13.11.1997. He further submitted that it is not necessary to frame issues in the execution proceedings in each case. In support of this submission, he placed reliance on a judgment of this Court in Som Parkash v. Santosh Ram, 1996 HRR 553.
4. In the rejoinder argument, the learned counsel of the objectors submits that the landlord has, in fact, given the said premises to firm M/s Kesho Ram Dev Raj and as such the learned trial Court ought to have framed the issue as the petitioners were partners of the firm.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the impugned order, I am of the opinion that the impugned order passed by the Civil Judge does not call for any interference Under Section 115, C.P.C. In the main case, the judgment of this Court has already been upheld by the Supreme Court and as per the judgment in that case, tenant is Dev Raj and not the firm. In any case, the learned trial Court had already granted one opportunity to lead evidence by the objectors. The case of UCO Bank (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners, is of no assistance at all to the petitioners, as in that case it was held that the Court was required to frame a specific issue with regard to limitation. Similarly, in the case of Charanjit Singh (supra) the property attached belonged to the objectors whereas in the present case the objectors are the real sons of Dev Raj who has been held to be the tenant upto the Supreme Court.
6. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case mentioned herein above, I am of the opinion that it was not necessary to frame the issues. Accordingly the petition is dismissed. A copy of the order be given dasti on usual payment.