Syed RIAZ AHMAD SHAH AND Another vs DAYAL.SINGH COLLEGE TRUST

1. SALAHUDDIN AHMED, J.-Respondent filed a suit for arrears of rent and ejectrnent against Sheikh Riazul Had on 30-6-1960 No written statement having been filed by the respondent, the suit was decreed ex parte under Order rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure on 7-12-1960.

2. Petitioners claimed to have occupied part of the house in November 1960, as tenants under the respondent. On 2-1-1961decree-holder respondent filed an application for execution of the decree.

3. On 26-4-1963 the petitioners resisted the execution of the decree. On 25-5-1963 respondent- decree-holder complained of such resistance. Before this date, however, petitioners applied under section 151 read with Order XXI, rules 100, 101 and 103, C. P. C. And claimed that they were not bound by the decree. They challenged the competence of the respondent to file the suit on the ground that after the Scheme of Management had been passed by the Central Government in regard to Evacuee Trust Property it was the Evacuee Trust Board that alone could sue. The learned Civil Judge overruled this objection and held that only the Evacuee Trust Board could raise it and not the petitioners.

4. The High Court negatived this contention on the ground that the petitioners under Order XXI, rule 101, C. P. C. Could not raise such objection.

5. According to well-settled principles of law the executing Court cannot go behind the decree.

6. Therefore, to permit the petitioners to raise the objection will amount to asking the executing Court to go behind the decree which it cannot.

7. It is thus evident that merely on the basis of a technical objection the petitioners succeeded in obstructing the execution of the decree passed as far back as in December 1960. This has resulted in grave miscarriage of justice.

8. The petition is dismissed. The Execution Court will now proceed with the case from day to day, and dispose of it expeditiously and in accordance with law.