This decree was put into execution on Aug. 26,. 1969 by Ejectment Execution Case No. 611 of 1969. On Nov. 12, 1969 the opposite party ... July 1979 for rendering vacant possession. Further proceedings of Ejectment Execution case remained stayed from May 7, 1970 to July 31, 1979. On July
chhutan for recovery of rent and ejectment from
the premises which was decreed and the execution proceeding
No. 331 of 1951 ensued. Since the Amin
this litigation was that the plaintiffs predecessor obtained a decree in ejectment. We agree with the lower Court's finding that the defendants ... condition in the decree which would enable them to avoid ejectment. If after the execution of the decree they retained or regamed possession, such possession
Chhutan for recovery of rent and ejectment from the premises which was decreed and the execution proceeding No. 331 of 1951 ensured. Since the Amin
vacate the premises and the plaintiff filed an application for execution. The defendant thereupon filed an objection under Section 7, U. P. Ordinance ... suit may be treated as a proceeding for execution. If, however, the period of limitation for execution of the decree has expired, and the decree
Section 35(1) of the CPC and the execution
of a decree of ejectment. The Hon'ble Supreme Court was
dealing with this issue ... have been taken by me as resistance to the execution of
the decree of ejectment under the said provisions of Rule
petitioner had filed a suit against the respondent no.2 for ejectment of the
respondent no.2 from an immovable property claiming that the respondent ... parte decree for ejectment of the respondent no.2 was passed
in favour of the petitioner and the petitioner sought execution thereof, the
respondent
forma defendants, had supported the plaintiffs in an earlier suit in ejectment and had asked for a declaration that they too had a share ... defendants, the suit itself not having been one for partition but for ejectment. The Primary Court dismissed the suit as barred computing the period from
deeds in favour of defendants 9 and a. The plaintiffs sought for ejectment of defendants 8 to 11 and claimed joint possession of the disputed ... ejecting defendants 8 to 11.
On appeal by defendants 8 and 9, the Subordinate Judge modified the decree of the Munsif by disallowing ejectment
right in refusing to let the plaintiff take advantage of the previous execution proceedings for extending the time under Section 14 , for the reason that ... before possession was delivered to the plaintiff, the District Munsif in the execution proceedings refused to award compensation under this head
