Tara Chand And Ors vs Chandra Prakash
2023 Latest Caselaw 5060 Raj/2

[2023:RJ-JP:23095]

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                    BENCH AT JAIPUR

                S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 175/2006
1. Tara Chand S/o Shri Jawahar Mal Sindhi, R/o Newai
(Deceased)
1/1 Bodhmal S/o Late Shri Tara Chand (Deceased)
1/2 Kamal S/O Late Shri Tara Chand
1/3 Gopmal S/o Late Shri Tara Chand
1/4 Heera Mal S/o Late Shri Tara Chand
All R/o Newai, Distt. Tonk (Raj.)
                                                          ----Objector/Petitioner
                                     Versus
Chandra Prakash S/o Shri Ramdhan, R/o S.M.B. Bhojnalaya,
Subhash Bazar, Tonk (Raj.)
                                              ----Decree holder/Respondent

For Petitioner(s)          :     Mr. Sandeep Jain, Adv.
For Respondent(s)          :     Mr. R. P. Sharma, Adv.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Judgment

DATE OF JUDGMENT 18/09/2023

The present Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the

petitioner-objector (for short 'the objector') against the order

dated 25.07.2006 passed by the Executing Court, whereby the

objections filed by the objector have been dismissed.

Learned counsel for the objector submits that the executing

court wrongly dismissed the objections filed by the objector vide

order dated 25.07.2006. Learned counsel for the objector also

submits that order of the learned court below dated 06.05.1991

was set aside by the appellate court vide order dated 05.12.2000,

so, respondent-decree holder was not entitled to get any rent.

Learned counsel for the objector also submits that the trial court

as well as appellate court had committed mistake in not

considering the fact that respondent-decree holder was not

[2023:RJ-JP:23095] (2 of 2) [CR-175/2006]

entitled to get rent because forcefully possession was taken from

the objector on 16.12.1987. So, execution regarding arrears of

rent was not maintainable. So, order of the executing court be set

aside.

Learned counsel for the respondent-decree holder has

opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the

objector and submitted that appellate court had set aside the

order of the trial court regarding eviction of the judgment debtor-

objector from the disputed premises. So, respondent-decree

holder is entitled to get arrears of rent from the objector. So, the

executing court rightly dismissed the objection filed by the

objector. So, the present revision petition be dismissed.

I have considered the arguments advanced by learned

counsel for the objector as well as learned counsel for the

respondent-decree holder.

It is an admitted position that the trial court had passed the

decree regarding eviction of the disputed premises and arrears of

rent but appellate court had allowed the appeal and dismissed the

suit qua eviction only. Respondent-decree holder had filed the

execution petition for arrears of rent as per the decree. Trial court

as well as appellate court, both held the respondent-decree holder

entitled for arrears of rent. So, in my considered opinion,

executing court had not committed any error in dismissing the

objections filed by the objector. So, present revision petition being

devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed, which stands dismissed

accordingly.

(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J Jatin /01

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)