Thakur Prasad Sahu v. Iind Addl. District Judge, Mirzapur

S.P Srivastava, J.:— Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel representing the Decree holder respondent.

2. Perused the impugned judgment.

3. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that the claim of the judgment debtor petitioner that the eviction decree had become inexecutable in view of the alleged subsequent agreement/fresh contract of tenancy set up by him is totally misconceived as such claim clearly fell within the purview of ‘adjustment’ contemplated under Order XXI, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure and since it had not been got recorded as certified by the petitioner as envisaged under the aforesaid provision such an objection could not be recognised or taken notice of by the executing court in view of the prohibition contained in Order XXI, Rule 3 of the Code. Consequently the decree in question could not be refused to be executed on that ground.

4. The controversy involved in the present case stands concluded by the decision of this Court in the case of Km. Raj Kumari v. Additional District Judge, reported in 1986 AWC 71 as well as the decision of the Full Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Rajeev Khandelwal v. Arun Panna Lal, reported in AIR 1987 MP 262, wherein the judgment of the court was delivered by Hon'ble N.D Ojha, C.J, as he then was.

5. Considering the ratio of the aforesaid decisions, with which I respectfully agree, wherein the various decisions of the Apex Court as well as the decision of the Full Bench of the Oudh Chief Court having material bearing on the controversy have been taken notice of, I am of the opinion that the decisions of the learned Single Judge in the case of Chitra Talkies, reported in AIR 1973 Allahabad 40 and Shyam Lal, reported in 1971 AWR 253 on which the learned Counsel for the petitioner has heavily relied upon, are of no significance and cannot be deemed to have any binding effect.

6. Even otherwise in view of the finding that the alleged agreement was not in respect of the accommodation which was the subject-matter of the suit I do not find any ground raised by the petitioner against the execution of the compromise decree to be sustainable.

7. The impugned order dismissing the objection filed by the petitioner does not suffer from any such error much less manifest error of law which may justify an interference therein, while exercising the extra-ordinary jurisdiction envisaged under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

8. The writ petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed.

9. Petition dismissed.