Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

14. Having considered both the oral and documentary evidence, which have been relied upon by the respective parties, exhibit 'P' series and exhibit 'D' series, almost all are certified copies of the Court proceedings taken place before this Court as well as Trial Court in HRC proceedings, execution proceedings, original suits, which were filed for ejection, there is no dispute with regard to the documents.

15. The evidence of PW1, complainant, is that inspite of there being a decree in O.A.No.861 of 1995 and also order passed in the writ petition confirming the decree and also confirmation of sale in favour of the complainant, the accused abused the process of the Court by filing the objectors application in Execution Case No.936 of 2012 and in other execution cases which were arising out of the suits which are decreed in favour of the complainant. The accused also did not dispute the said proceedings and also the filing of impleading applications in the suits filed by the complainant. He also did not dispute the filing of the objectors applications in the respective execution petitions. The accused also did not dispute that the obstructor application filed by him were also dismissed. The accused also did not dispute the filing of application under Section 10 of CPC to stay the further proceedings of the respective executions, which are marked at exhibit 'P' series. The said application was also dismissed. In the cross-examination of PW1, it is elicited that he did not obtain any orders from the Debts Recovery Tribunal regarding possession from the Recovery Officer. Though it is disputed that the complaint is not within time, in the cross-examination, PW1 has denied the same. The accused counsel himself confronted Ex.D1, the order of confirmation of sale made in favour of the complainant. The very case of the PW1 is that tenants were in possession of the property and hence the complainant has approached the Civil Court for eviction of the tenants.