Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

41. It is submitted that apart from Miscellaneous Case No.4 of 2015, various other judgment resistors, claiming to be business associates of ALW on whose behalf ALW was litigating, had filed applications under Order XXI Rule 101 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which were all dismissed upon being heard together on January 7, 2017. Thus, the finding rendered in the said proceedings at the time of dismissal, that ALW was not in possession of the suit premises pursuant to an agreement dated July 1, 2006, is binding on ALW and operates as res judicata in the present proceeding. It is also argued that the application filed by ALW for condonation of delay in presenting the miscellaneous appeal against the order of Miscellaneous Case No. 4 of 2015 was rejected, inter alia on the ground that ALW had produced procured documents, which did not speak well of the conduct of ALW. Hence, the executing court acted well within its jurisdiction to refuse the prayer for stay made by ALW in the execution proceeding, after having exhausted all fora.