Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

This appeal is directed against the order dated 19.4.2011 and 25.1.2013, dismissing the objection filed by the appellant.

The brief facts taken from the order of the appellate Court are that an ex parte judgment and decree was passed in Civil Suit No.1592 of 1996 against Anil Kumar on 14.2.2000 in which it was averred that Anil Kumar was a tenant and had defaulted in the payment of rent and the suit property was required for personal use and occupation. Anil Kumar did not appear despite service and was proceeded against ex parte on 24.10.1997 and thereafter, ejectment order was passed on 14.2.2000. The execution was filed for taking possession but summons were received back unexecuted on 20.2.2003. The appellant filed objections under Order 21 Rule 60 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [for short 'the CPC] for dismissing the execution and for recalling the warrant of possession claiming that demised premises was never occupied by Anil Kumar, who had never resided in it and was wrongly arrayed as defendant in which the appellant has been residing in his own right. It was claimed that he had voter identity card, LIC policies, land acquisition notices, ration card etc. of that address in his name. The objections were contested by the decree-holder claiming that the appellant was never the tenant on the property in dispute rather it was Anil Kumar, who was in occupation, whose tenancy was terminated through notice and since he failed to appear and contest the suit and left the premises after handing over the possession to the appellant, he is also bound by the decree. The Court framed the following issues on 10.8.2010: -