| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1961 SLG 2255 1961 SLD 2255 = 1961 PLD 594 |
Dacca High Court
Civil Rules Nos. 523 and 524 of 1959, decided on 17th Decem ber 1959.
Presented By: Murshed and M. R. Khan, JJ
Debesh Chandra Bhattacharjee for Petitioners in both the appeals. A. M. Chowdhury for the Opposite-Party in Case No. 523. S. A. Pal with J. H. Khan for the Opposite-Party No. 1 in Case No. 524. Md. Yakub Hossain for the Deputy Registrar in Case No. 524.
Civil Rules Nos. 523 and 524 of 1959, decided on 17th Decem ber 1959.
Presented By: Murshed and M. R. Khan, JJ
Debesh Chandra Bhattacharjee for Petitioners in both the appeals. A. M. Chowdhury for the Opposite-Party in Case No. 523. S. A. Pal with J. H. Khan for the Opposite-Party No. 1 in Case No. 524. Md. Yakub Hossain for the Deputy Registrar in Case No. 524.
RANJIT SINGH HAZARI AND OTHERS-Petitioners
VERSUS
JUMAN MEAN AND OTHERS-Opposite-Parties
Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
Section: S. 36 read with 0. XXI, r. 100
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 36 read with 0. XXI, r. 100-Restoration of possession to person claiming to be in posses sion in his own account and not being party to decrees-0. XXI, r. 100 applies to execution of order of restoration. Section 36 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 in express terms makes all the provisions "relating to the execution of decrees" applicable to the execution of orders. The provisions of Order XXI, rule 100 of the Code are provisions relating to the execution of decrees and they are applicable to the execution of orders. Application for restoration of possession under Order XXI, rule 100 was therefore in order. JUDGMENT MURSHED, J.-These two Rules were issued on two appli cations under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure in respect of the same property and our one judgment will govern both of them. The said applications arise in the following circum stances :- In the course of execution of a decree, which was obtain ed by the Province of East Bengal, the petitioners who were not parties to the suit in which the decree was passed, were ousted from possession. Thereupon the petitioners applied to Court under Order XXI, rule 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure for restoration of possession. The Court below allowed the said application and passed an order in favour of the petitioners for restoration of possession. The Province of East Bengal had merely obtained symbolical possession and did not take physical posses sion of the property in question. The petitioners thereafter put the order passed in their favour under Order XXI, rule 101 of the Code into execution. In the course of the execution of the said order the opposite parties before us were ousted from possession. The said opposite parties thereupon applied to the Court below under Order XXI, rule 100 of the Code for restoration, stating that they were actually in possession of the said property and that they had been ousted by an officer of the Court in the course of the execution of the order in favour of the petitioners. These applica tions were marked as Miscellaneous Cases Nos. 69 and 70 of 1957. The…