Feeling aggrieved against that order, this appeal has been filed.
The trial Court granted execution to companysign the respondents No.
32, 33 35 admeasuring 384 sq.
The appeal was dismissed.
Preliminary decree was granted on September 24, 1974 final decree thereof was passed on May 22, 1980.
1 and 2 are entitled to 1/3rd share each in the total extent of the land as per the final decree granted by the civil companyrt.
1 2 each have purchased 1/3rd share of the property.
Ultimately, the decree of the trial companyrt granting injunction became final.
1 and 2 to civil prison and mandatory injunction for removal of the respondents possession of the entire property with police assistance.
He had filed a civil suit for injunction against the respondent.
27/73 was filed for partition and separate possession thereof.
The facts number in dispute are that the appellant was inducted into possession of the properties, plots bearing Nos.
yards situated in Wazir Pur, Kotla Mubarakpur, New Delhi by Smt.
It may be mentioned at this stage that this appeal arises against a proceeding initiated under Order 21 Rule 32 2 of CPC for enforcement of the mandatory injunction granted by the civil companyrt in execution.
Vimla Devi, the 3rd respondent.
Thus the rights of the parties stood worked out namely the appellant respondent Nos.
Consequently, suit No.
While dismissing the revision under Section 115 CPC as being barred by limitation, the High Court suo motu exercised its power under Article 227 of the Constitution and set aside the order of the execution companyrt.
In view of these facts, it is stated by Shri Rajindra Sachher and Shri G.L. Sanghi, learned senior companynsel, that the appeals have become infructuous.
In the meanwhile, the appellant as well as respondent Nos.
