Ram Avatar vs Sri Mohan Kuti Siddhashram Trust
2022 Latest Caselaw 4504 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 6
 

 
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 3623 of 2022
 

 
Petitioner :- Ram Avatar
 
Respondent :- Sri Mohan Kuti Siddhashram Trust
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Pravesh Kumar
 

 
Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J. 

Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record. Along with the supplementary affidavit, a certified copy of the order dated 16.04.2022, has been filed. It is this order which has been impugned in the present petition. The petitioner is a tenant in Shop No.15, on behalf of Sri Mohankuti Siddhashram Trust, who are the owner and landlord. The said Trust are the respondents to this petition. The plaintiff-respondents have filed SCC Suit No.102 of 2016, after determining the petitioner's tenancy, for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent, besides mesne profit. The suit was decreed ex-parte vide judgment and decree dated 20.02.2020.

It is the petitioner's case that he had no knowledge of the proceedings of the suit, which went ex-parte and resulted in an ex-parte decree. He came to know of the ex-parte decree through the process issued in Execution Case No.15 of 2020. The defendant-petitioner filed objection under Section 47 CPC, which were registered as Miscellaneous Case No.68 of 2021. The Executing Court, by means of the order impugned dated 16.04.2022 has rejected the objections under Section 47 CPC, preferred by the petitioner, who is the Judgment-Debtor.

Mr. Pravesh Kumar Rajpoot, learned Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently urged that the landlord-respondent want to dispossess the petitioner, in order to allot the shop in favour of a person of their choice.

The suit went ex-parte and decided without opportunity of hearing to him. These are matters, which cannot be gone into in an objection under Section 47 CPC. An objection 47 CPC, does not relate to merits of the parties case, that has to be determined at the trial. An objection under Section 47 CPC relates to execute, discharge and satisfaction of the decree. Those are not the issues that the petitioner has raised through the objections that have come to be rejected by the order impugned.

In this view of the matter, no case for interference with the order impugned is made out.

This petition fails and is dismissed.

This order, however, will not prevent the petitioner from seeking such remedies against the ex-parte decree, as may be advised.

Order Date :- 27.5.2022

NSC