Sarojini 14th january 2016 desitv trial#

The learned Counsel submitted that when the Court Ameena came to execute the delivery warrant, then only the present Writ Petitioner came to know about the suit and judgment and decree passed in the said suit. He also made the submission that as the judgment and decree was not challenged before the Appellate Court, the respondent - plaintiff filed the Execution Petition and looking to the order passed by the Executing Court, it was observed that since the decree is within two years, notice was dispensed with to the Judgment Debtor and delivery warrant was issued. Hence, the learned Counsel submitted that the judgment and decree was obtained behind her back though she continued in possession and she was not arrayed as a party. The learned Counsel further made the submission that the respondent-plaintiff filed the suit against the sons of the present Writ Petitioner without arraying the present Writ Petitioner as a party in the suit seeking possession of the suit schedule property. After demise of her husband, the present Writ Petitioner continued in the suit schedule property and continued the hotel business, which was run by her husband. The learned Counsel appearing for the Writ Petitioner made the submission that earlier husband of the present Writ Petitioner was the tenant of the suit schedule property. 2 (Annexure-E) and also to quash the judgment and order dated passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, D.K.

Sarojini 14th january 2016 desitv trial#

This Writ Petition is filed by the Writ petitioner - obstructer challenging the order passed by the trial Court dated on the application I.A. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the Writ Petitioner and also the learned counsel appearing for the respondent - plaintiff.