3 The petitioners raised various objections to the execution of the decree by making an application under section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the said Code). The first objection was that during the pendency of the suit the liquidator of the first plaintiff company expired. Though another liquidator was appointed in his place, in the suit, the substitution was not made. The suit continued to be in the name of the deceased liquidator. It was contended that as the liquidator of the sole plaintiff died and as his name was not substituted by newly appointed liquidator, the suit could not have been continued, but the Court allowed first respondent to transpose himself as the second plaintiff. It was contended that one Maruti , the predecessor of the petitioners was a tenant in respect of the suit agricultural lands on the tiller’s day. It was submitted that Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit in as much as only the authorities under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) had jurisdiction to evict the defendants. The third objection was that the suit land became a part of Gat no. 481 on finalisation of the consolidation scheme. Therefore, now the suit land cannot be identified. By the impugned judgment and order, the said objections were overruled by the trial Court.
