Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: ejectment execution in Mr. Desh Raj Singh vs Triveni Engineering And Industries ... on 9 May, 2006Matching Fragments
4. It appears that the judgment debtor did not raise any objections but his son, the petitioner herein, raised objections under Section 47 read with Order XXI Rule 97 to 107 alleging that the decree holder had changed his name, the application for execution was barred by time, the objector was residing in a different premises belonging to one Tej Pratap Singh, the land underneath the premises has been leased by the LandDO and that the site plan of the property is not filed.
5. In the reply, preliminary objections were raised that the objector has no independent status in the suit property, therefore, he has no locus standi to file the objections, specially, when the judgment debtor is still alive. That the dispute about identity is self-contradictory and the decree holder was not going to execute the decree on the property of Tej Pratap Singh. It is stated by Decree Holder that there is no dispute about the identity of the property, the same is a portion of Property No. 124 Janpath Lane known as Shanti Niwas and is not a portion of Windsor Mansion (as alleged by the objector). Moreover, the objector was in possession through his father and has to be ejected in execution of the decree. It is submitted that the decree holder is the same entity who had filed the suit, only the name has changed from Gangeshwar Limited to Trivani Engineering and Industries Limited pursuant to a special resolution under Section 21 of the Company Act and after approval of the Central Government vide order dated 31.3.2000. A fresh certificate of incorporation of the change of name has been issued by the authorities and this has been mentioned in para 'b' of the execution application. It is also mentioned in the application that the decree holder does not have the site plan of the suit property but there is only one property of the decree holder which is in possession of the judgment debtor. It has been submitted that the original file was destroyed in the District Court in a fire in the record room. The suit property is stated to be on a piece of land measuring 10' x 10' in one corner behind a garage.