1. The present Civil Revision Application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been preferred by the applicant-original judgment creditor to quash and set aside the impugned order passed by the learned executing Court below Exh. 11 in Execution Petition No. 13/1998 confirmed by the learned appellate Court by impugned judgment and order dated 06/09/1999 in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 25/1999.
2. It appears that the applicant instituted Regular Civil Suit No. 108/1987 against the respondent in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Upleta for recovery of possession of the suit property. It appears that by judgment and decree dated 04/05/1988 the learned trial Court decreed the suit and directed the respondent-original defendant to handover peaceful and vacant possession to the applicant. It appears that the applicant filed Execution Petition No. 13/1998 before the learned executing Court for execution of the decree passed in Regular Civil Suit No. 108/1987. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court in Regular Civil Suit No. 108/1987, the respondent-original defendant preferred Appeal before the learned District Court. There was delay in preferring the Appeal and, therefore, an application for condonation was also preferred. Simultaneously, the respondent-original defendant also prayed for interim relief and the learned appellate Court granted stay of further implementation and operation of the judgment and decree passed in Regular Civil Suit No. 108/1987. However, it appears that extension of the interim relief was not communicated to the learned executing Court and, therefore, the learned executing Court directed to handover the possession and consequently possession was taken over from the respondent-original defendant. However, immediately the respondent-original defendant submitted an application, Exh. 11 before the learned executing Court to return the possession pointing out that there was already stay granted by the learned appellate Court against the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court in Regular Civil Suit No. 108/1987, which was sought to be executed. Considering the above, the learned executing Court passed an order below Exh. 11 directing the appellant to return the possession. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by the learned executing Court below Exh. 11 in Execution Petition No. 13/1998 the applicant preferred Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 25/1999 before the learned District Court, Gondal and by impugned judgment and order the learned appellate Court has dismissed the said application confirming the order passed by the learned executing Court below Exh. 11 in Execution Petition No. 13/1998. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order passed by both the Courts below, the applicant-original judgment creditor has preferred the present Civil Revision Application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
3. Heard Ms. Mandavia, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant and considered the impugned well reasoned judgment and order passed by the learned appellate Court. Considering the fact that the possession of the disputed property was ordered to be given and jungam warrant was issued and the same came to be executed during pendency of the Appeal preferred against the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court, which was sought to be executed and the same was in fact stayed by the learned appellate Court, it cannot be said that both the Courts below have committed any error and/or illegality in restoring the possession of the rented premises to the respondent, which calls for the interference of this Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. As such, no illegality has been committed by the learned executing Court confirmed by the learned appellate Court as the learned executing Court has tried to rectify the mistake and tried to do substantial justice. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no substance in the present Civil Revision Application, which deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. Rule is discharged. Ad-interim relief granted earlier, if any, stands vacated forthwith.
(M.R. SHAH, J.) siji