Skip to content


Farukh and ors. Vs. District Judge and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTenancy
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided On
Case NumberWrit Petn. No. 4015 of 1982
Judge
Reported inAIR1984All393
ActsCode of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Sections 47 - Order 21, Rules 11, 11(2), 17(1), 17(1A) and 22(1) - Order 22, Rule 11
AppellantFarukh and ors.
RespondentDistrict Judge and ors.
Appellant AdvocateV.C. Verma and ;A.R. Khan, Advs.
Respondent AdvocateA.P. Singh and ;Z. Jilani, Advs.
DispositionRevision dismissed
Excerpt:
.....sought to be executed - held, filing of copy not obligatory unless specifically required. -..........suit for ejectment in the court of munsif north. this was suit no. 492 of 1967. the tenant was one najmur rahman. he was defendant no. 1 in the suit. four other persons were impleaded as defendants, namely, mohammad hasnain, karam khan farukh, and imran son of mohammad hasnain. out of them karam khan has died and is represented by srimati noor jehan petitioner no. 2, imran is opposite party no. 4. petitioner no. 3 and opposite parties 5 and 8 are other heirs of mohammad hasnain. opposite parties 9 to 17 are the heirs of najmur rahman.3. the contention of the plaintiff, was that the tenant, namely, najmur rahman had committed a wilful default in payment of arrears of rent and had also sublet the premises to the other defendants mentioned above. the trial court upheld both these pleas and.....
Judgment:
ORDER

K.N. Goyal, J.

1. This writ petition has been filed by three of the judgment-debtors against execution proceedings pending against them in the Court of the Munsif North, Lucknow.

2. Opposite party No. 3 as the landlady of the certain accommodation situated in the city of Lucknow filed a suit for ejectment in the Court of Munsif North. This was suit No. 492 of 1967. The tenant was one Najmur Rahman. He was defendant No. 1 in the suit. Four other persons were impleaded as defendants, namely, Mohammad Hasnain, Karam Khan Farukh, and Imran son of Mohammad Hasnain. Out of them Karam Khan has died and is represented by Srimati Noor Jehan petitioner No. 2, Imran is opposite party No. 4. Petitioner No. 3 and opposite parties 5 and 8 are other heirs of Mohammad Hasnain. Opposite parties 9 to 17 are the heirs of Najmur Rahman.

3. The contention of the plaintiff, was that the tenant, namely, Najmur Rahman had committed a wilful default in payment of arrears of rent and had also sublet the premises to the other defendants mentioned above. The trial Court upheld both these pleas and decreed the suit for ejectment and rent. The lower appellate Court upheld the finding of wilful default but did not uphold the finding of illegal subletting. It, however, maintained the decree against all the defendants. The trial Court's decree is dated 20-5-69 and the order of the lower appellate Court is dated 1-12-75. The plaintiff-decree-holder then filed an execution application on 20-4-76, vide Annexure 1 to the writ petition, mentioning that no second appeal was filed till then. A second appeal was, however, filed by the defendants other than Najmur Rahman soon thereafter. During the pendency of that second appeal Najmur Rahman died and his heirs were brought on the record.

4. Ultimately the Second Appeal was dismissed on 18-5-81. During the pendency of the Second Appeal a stay order had been passed by this Court. As a result of the stay order execution proceedings remained pending. On 22-5-81. vide Annexure 2 to the writ petition, the following order was passed by the execution Court :--

'22/5/81

C-16-Appin. along with copy of order of Hon'ble High Court for proceeding the execution filed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //