Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: ejectment execution in Jatinderpal Singh vs Jagdeep Singh on 23 July, 2010Matching Fragments
Since the plaintiff was dispossessed on 28.01.2000 in execution of ex parte ejectment order, the plaintiff filed instant suit on 29.05.2000 for possession of the disputed shop.
The defendant resisted the suit, although factual position noticed hereinbefore could not be controverted.
Learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ropar vide judgment and decree dated 09.05.2008 decreed the plaintiff's suit. Learned District Judge, Rupnagar vide judgment and decree dated 03.06.2009, dismissed the first appeal preferred by the defendant against judgment and decree of the trial Court. Feeling aggrieved, the defendant has preferred the instant second appeal.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file.
There appears to be some confusion in the judgment of the trial Court regarding the date on which the plaintiff was dispossessed in execution of the ex parte ejectment order. The trial Court has observed that the plaintiff was dispossessed on 28.02.1999. This observation is factually incorrect because even ex parte ejectment order, in execution whereof the plaintiff was dispossessed, was passed on 02.08.1999 and, therefore, the plaintiff could not have been dispossessed on 28.02.1999 i.e even before the passing of the ejectment order. On the other hand, the plaintiff in the plaint pleaded that bailiff came to the disputed shop on 28.01.2000 with warrant of possession in execution of the ex parte ejectment order. Even defendant while appearing in the witness-box stated in his affidavit of examination-in-chief itself that possession of the disputed shop was delivered to him on 28.01.2000 in execution of the ex parte ejectment order. It is thus apparent that the plaintiff was dispossessed from the disputed shop on 28.01.2000 in execution of the ex parte ejectment order which was later on set aside. The instant suit was filed on 29.05.2000 i.e just four months after the plaintiff was dispossessed and so the suit was filed within limitation period of six months required under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.
As noticed hereinabove, it is not disputed that the defendant took possession in execution of the ex parte ejectment order dated 02.08.1999 which was, however, set aside vide order dated 22.04.2002 and thereafter the ejectment petition itself was dismissed on 07.08.2003. Consequently, plaintiff became entitled to take back possession of the disputed shop from the defendant because the ejectment order in execution whereof the defendant had taken possession of the disputed shop is no longer in existence and the ejectment petition filed by the defendant already stands dismissed. Resultantly, the plaintiff is entitled to take back possession of the disputed shop as tenant.
Defendant has no right to retain possession of the disputed shop. On the other hand, plaintiff being tenant in the disputed shop is entitled to take back possession thereof. It may be added that ex parte ejectment order was set aside vide order dated 22.04.2002 by observing that the summons in the ejectment petition had not been signed by the plaintiff herein. Consequently, the ex parte ejectment order was vitiated for this reason as well and possession taken in execution of the ex parte ejectment order cannot be perpetuated by the defendant, particularly when the ejectment order itself has been set aside and the ejectment petition has also since been dismissed.