Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. The case of the first respondent inter alia in the petition is that there is only one premises bearing No. 10.5.105 and there is no separate premises bearing No. 10.5.105A and that the revision petitioners' obstruction was set up by the second respondent-judgment-debtor. That petition was resisted by the revision petitioners as well as the second respondent-judgment-debtor. As can be seen from the respective counters filed by them, it is their plea inter alia that the premises bearing No. 10.5.105A is different, wherein the revision petitioners have been residing. Therefore, the obstruction is in good faith. During the course of enquiry two witnesses have been examined on the side of the petitioner-landlady and documents Exs. P-1 to P-7 have been got marked, On the side of the obstructors, five witnesses have been examined and documents Exs. R-1 to R-14 have been got marked. Exs. X-1 and X-2 have been got marked through the witness R.W. 4. On the side of the Court, C.W. 1 Commissioner has been examined and the documents Exs. C-1 to C-10 have been got marked. Upon considering the evidence both oral and documentary the Execution Court has come to a conclusion that there is no premises with Door No. 10.5.105A in existence. With that finding, ultimately the Court has ordered obstruction to be removed. That is now being impugned in this revision petition by the two obstructors. The contentions of the learned Counsel for the revision petitioners are two fold to wit;

What is ordained is that the claim of obstructors should be in good faith and the resistance shall not be without any just cause. The enquiry contemplated under sub-rule 7 is obviously summary in nature. That does not mean, the Court is precluded from probing further in the matter with a view to have the necessary clarity in the mind. Merely because an elaborate enquiry has been conducted, prolix orders in that view of the revision petitioners has been passed, it does not mean that the execution Court has committed illegality or material irregularity. So as to know that there is no just cause for the resistance of the obstructors and their claim is not made in good faith, at times, it requires for the Court to have necessary clarification. In view of the clear finding that it is only a building in respect of which the present dispute has arisen, I am of the considered view that there are no merits in the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners.