Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

In view of the above Full Bench judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court' I am of the view that the contention raised by one of the judgment-debtors on behalf of his minor son/obstructor cannot at all be countenanced.

10. My attention was also drawn to the order of the Division Bench in C.M.P. No. 11458 of 1991 in O.S.A. No. l64ofl991 filed by the judgment-debtors. It is useful in this context to refer to the order of the Division Bench:

Thus, according to the trial court the plaintiff/respondent is entitled to possession and that the defendants in collusion have kept her out of possession of the property. In view of the above finding, it is not a case in which it can be prima facie claimed by the appellants that they are entitled to possession. However, it is found that in some portion the defendants/appellants have been residing, from which portion they have to be evicted. On principles of commute sometimes courts have exception and grant stay of execution of a decree for ejectment from a residential house. But then, it is not known, since no such affidavit is filed before us, in which portion of the house the defendants/appellants are residing for, it is admitted before us that in most part of the building, tenants reside and thus only constructive possession will be required to be transferred. We are thus satisfied that restitution alone may be the proper remedy in the event of the appellants succeeding without at this stage in any manner interfering with the decree by an interim order. This petition is dismissed.