1. The respondents-original plaintiff filed a suit being Regular Civil Suit No.19 of 19896 before the learned Civil Judge (J.D.), Vijapur, in which present petitioner-original defendant appeared and filed his written statement and also led evidence. After considering the oral as well as documentary evidence on record, the learned Joint Civil Judge (J.D.), Vijapur, decreed the suit. Said judgment and decree was challenged before the District Court, Mehsana, by preferring Regular Civil Appeal No.55 of 2004. However, said appeal was dismissed vide order dated 3-2-2007 by the learned Addl. District Judge and Presiding Officer, 4th Fast Track Court, Mehsana, after giving full opportunity of hearing to both the parties. The present petitioner-judgment debtor thereafter filed Civil Revision Application No.30 of 2007 before this Court. However, said revision was also dismissed by this Court vide order dated 6-4-2010. Said order was carried before the Hon’ble Apex Court by way of preferring Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.18421 of 2010 along with delay condonation of application. The Hon’ble Apex Court condoned the delay, however, Special Leave Petition was dismissed vide order dated 10-12-2010.
2. Thereafter, the present respondents-decree holders filed execution petition being Execution Proceedings No.21 of 2010 for executing the decree passed by the learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Vijapur, which was confirmed upto the Hon’ble Apex Court. In the execution proceedings, the present petitioner-judgment debtor submitted an application at Ex.20 raising objection under Sec.47 of the Code of Civil Procedure contending inter alia that as Bombay Rent Act is not applicable to the Village of Vijapur Taluka, the decree passed by the learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Vijapur, is a nullity and, therefore, the decree is not enforceable and trial court as well as the revisional court have not considered the same and committed error. However, said application was rejected by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Vijapur, vide order dated 20-11-2012. The petitioner thereafter preferred Rent Revision No.1 of 2011 before the learned Additional District Court, Mehsana. However, said revision was also dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Mehsana, vide order dated 11-12-2012. Hence, the present petition.
3. Heard learned advocate, Mr.S.A.Pandya for the petitioner.
4. It is submitted by Mr.Pandya for the petitioner that as learned Civil Judge, Vijapur, has no jurisdiction to pass the decree, the decree is nullity and, therefore, it is not enforceable and both the courts below have committed error in rejecting the objection raised by the present petitioner-judgment debtor. It is further submitted that Hon’ble Apex Court has not decided the Revision Petition filed by the petitioner on merits but only decided delay condonation. He has relied on the decisions which were relied on by his counterpart before the learned Additional District Judge.
5. This Court has gone through the orders passed by the trial court as well as the revisional court. Prima facie, this Court agrees with the findings of the trial court as well as the revisional court.
6. It appears from the record of this petition that order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court is not attached with this petition. However, order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court as reproduced by the learned Additional District Judge, Mehsana, in her order dated 11- 12-2012 passed in Rent Revision No.1 of 2011 reads as under:
“Delay condoned. We have gone through the Revision Petition and the connected papers, we do not find any merit in the same. Accordingly the Revision Petition is dismissed.”
7. It is explicitly clear from the aforesaid order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court that Hon’ble Apex Court has decided the matter on merits and dismissed the Revision Petition filed by the judgment debtor after condoning the delay and, therefore, from any stretch of imagination, it could not be said that Hon’ble Apex Court has not decided the matter on merits and only passed the order in delay condonation application.
8. As far as the decisions relied on by the learned advocate which were relied on by his counterpart at the revisional court are concerned, there cannot be any dispute regarding the ratio laid down. However, in my view, the ratio laid down therein would not be applicable to the facts of the present case.
9. It is to be noted that the petitioner was having ample opportunities of raising the contentions raised in application Ex.20 before the trial court, appellate court, this Court and also before the Hon’ble Apex Court. However, he has not availed those opportunities and now has raised the contentions at the time when the judgment holders filed execution application for executing the decree. It is now pertinent to note that the decree was passed in 1986 and by filing this petition, the learned advocate for the petitioner has made a faint attempt to deprive the judgment holder of the fruits of his decree.
10. In view of the above, the present petition is summarily dismissed.
(M.D.SHAH, J.) FURTHER ORDER After dictation of the aforesaid judgment and order, the learned advocate for the petitioner has requested to stay operation of the order for four weeks to enable him to approach higher forum. Considering the facts and circumstances, request is rejected.
(M.D.SHAH, J.) RADHAN