Skip to content


Jai Lal Sheo Chand, Decree-holder Vs. Bhu Dev Bhola Singh, Judgment-debtor - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTenancy
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided On
Case NumberEx. Second Appeal No. 1029 of 1954
Judge
Reported inAIR1956P& H256
ActsCode of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Sections 47
AppellantJai Lal Sheo Chand, Decree-holder
RespondentBhu Dev Bhola Singh, Judgment-debtor
Appellant Advocate Shamair Chand, Adv.
Respondent Advocate H.L. Sarin, Adv.
DispositionAppeal allowed
Excerpt:
.....& a.s. naidu, jj] writ appeal held, a writ appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by single judge in a writ petition filed under article 226 of the constitution of india. in a writ application filed under articles 226 and 227 of constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under article 226, a writ appeal will lie. but, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a single judge in exercising powers of superintendence under article 227 of the constitution. - bad v......to government liability fo the judgment-debtor under the (sic) and to have effect upon the time or main its enforcement. if so, jai lal was justified suing out execution of the decree for the (sic) of bhu dev.7. for the foregoing reasons, i allow (sic) second appeal no. 1029 of 1954 and three months' time to bhu dev to surrender session of the premises to jai lal. in case dev fails to surrender possession of the (sic) to jai lal within three months from today jai will be justified in suing out execution for eviction of bhu dev.8. parties are left to bear their own throughtout.
Judgment:

Harnam Singh, J.

1. In case No. 206/2 of 1950 the Rnet Controller passed order for the eviction of Bhu Dev tenant, Pursuant to that order Bhu Dev was to vacate the premises on or before 4-7-1953, or within three months of his transfer from Rohtak.

2. Bhu Dev judgment-debtor was transferred to Karnal on 4-8-1952. That being so, he was to surrender possession to the landlord on or before 4-11-1952.

3. On 28-9-1952, Bhu Dev paid rupees 90/- to the landlord who agreed that Bhu Dev may contione to be in occupation of the premis March, 1953.

4. On 19-7-1953, Jai Lal applied for the education of the decree passed by the Rent (sic).

5. In resisting the application Bhu Dev maintained that on 28-9-1952, fresh agree had come into existence betweent he part which the decree passed by the Rent Com was extinguished.

6. In Oudh Commercial Bank, Ltd. bad v. Bind Basni Kuer', AIR 1939 PC 80 (sic) George Rankin dealing with similar point (sic)

'If it appears to the Court, acting up 47, that the true effect of the agreement was discharge the decree forthwith' in conside of certain promises by the debtor, then no the Court will not have occasion to enforcement agreement in execution proceedings, but will the creditor to bring separate suit upon contract. If on the other hand, the agree is intended to govern the liability of the (sic) under the decree 'and to have effect upon time or manner of the enforcement', it is (sic) to be dealt with under Section 47'.

From the perusal of receipt, Ex. Rule 1, plain that the true effect of the agreeemtn not to discharge the decree forthwith in (sic) eration of certain promises by the judgment (sic). That agreement was intended to government liability fo the judgment-debtor under the (sic) and to have effect upon the time or main its enforcement. If so, Jai Lal was justified suing out execution of the decree for the (sic) of Bhu Dev.

7. For the foregoing reasons, I allow (sic) Second Appeal No. 1029 of 1954 and three months' time to Bhu Dev to surrender session of the premises to Jai Lal. In case Dev fails to surrender possession of the (sic) to Jai Lal within three months from today Jai will be justified in suing out execution for eviction of Bhu Dev.

8. Parties are left to bear their own throughtout.


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