The High Court rejected a petition seeking to stall execution proceedings in suits for rent and possession. It held that the pending revision regarding the dismissed portion of the decree does not prevent execution of the allowed portion. The petition was dismissed for lack of merit.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 58
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 3214 of 2019
Petitioner :- Vishwanath And 3 Others Respondent :- Smt. Savita Ruiya And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Pradeep Kumar Rai
Hon'ble Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava,J.
Heard Sri Pradeep Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the petitioners.
The present petition seeks a direction to the Additional Small Causes Court, Kanpur Nagar not to proceed with the Execution Case No. 16 of 2015 and the Execution Case No. 17 of 2015 which is said to be pending for execution of the judgment and decree passed in SCC Suit No. 525 of 1987.
It is admitted position that Suit No. 525/1987 (Smt. Savita Ruiya and another Vs. Kailash Nath Gupta and others) which had been filed for possession of bhandariya and duchhati and also for arrears of rent in respect of the premises in question was partly allowed vide judgment dated 31.5.2014 to the extent of the relief sought for possession of bhandariya and arrears of rent and so far as the relief sought for possession of duchhati, the suit was dismissed. The plaintiffs, Smt. Savita Ruiya and Smt. Prem Lata filed a revision being Revision No.74 of 2014 insofar as the suit had been dismissed in respect of the relief sought for possession of duchhati and the revision is said to be pending. The petitioners herein who were arrayed as defendants in the suit admittedly did not raise any challenge to the judgment dated 31.5.2014 insofar as the suit had been decreed with regard to bhandariya and arrears of rent. The Execution Case No. 16/2015 was filed in respect of the decree for recovery of rent. The Execution Case No. 17/2015 was filed with regard to the possession of bhandariya. Both the execution
cases were filed on 11.12.2014.
The defendants in the suit i.e. petitioners herein having not raised any challenge to the judgment dated 31.5.2014 whereby the suit had been partly allowed, mere pendency of the revision filed by the plaintiffs insofar as it relates to their grievances in respect of the suit having been partly dismissed, the petitioners cannot raise a claim that the execution proceedings pursuant to the decree dated 31.5.2014 may not proceed.
Counsel for the petitioners has not been able to point out any cogent ground in terms of which the executing court may be directed not to proceed with the execution case.
The petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 26.4.2019
Pratima
(Dr.Y.K.Srivastava,J.)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the executing court can be directed not to proceed with the execution case merely on the ground that a revision by the decree-holder for a dismissed portion of the suit is pending.
Vishwanath And 3 Others
Smt Savita Ruiya And Another
Dr Yogendra Kumar Srivastava
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
