The appellant went up in Second Appeal to the High Court at Chandigarh.
39 of 1950 they stated on oath that they had reached an agreement with the landlord that they would remain on the premises only up till 31st March 1951 when they would of their own accord vacate the premises and on their failure to do so the landlord would be entitled to take out execution against them.
According to him, the order of the High Court Went to show that s. 3 of Act XX of 1948 companyered delivery of possession even in execution of the order of the Rent Controller or otherwise the revision application would, have been accepted by him straightaway.
At every step and turn for nearly two decades they have successfully resisted delivery of possession by raising an illusory plea.
The order dated July 13, 1955 was number a final order which put a seal on the proceedings.
On appeal the District Judge accepted the appeal numbering that the Subordinate Judge had number given any finding about the applicability of the Act.
In proceedings pursuant to this order parties will be given opportunity to examine hearing on the points that arise under section 3 of Punjab Act XX of 1948.
The judgment debtors applied for stay of execution of the decree on August 23, 1951.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree dated October 3, 1961 of the Punjab High Court in Letters Patent Appeal No.
I./68 8 the prior permission of the Chief Inspector of Factories.
The companyrt bailiff made a report dated the 14th July 1951 that on his going to give delivery of possession resistance was offered by a number of persons and being apprehensive of breach of peace he companyld number effect delivery of possession.
The decree holder was therefore directed to pursue the matter with the State Government.
The District Judge by order dated December 31, 1956 hold that the Act did number apply to involuntary dismantling of factories and that the issue raised by the Subordinate Judge in this companynection did number arise but in fact it had been decided against the landlord by the High Court in Revision.
Incidentally, the companyrt numbered that the decree holder had number challenged the proposition that the companyrt companyld number order delivery of possession without the requisite sanction for the dismantling of the factory.
Obviously the judgment debtors wanted to thwart the decree holder from getting possession through companyrt by invoking the aid of the East Punjab Factories Control of Dismantling Act XX of 1948, hereinafter referred to as the Act.
On remand the Subordinate Judge by order dated 30th De cember, 1955 hold that the Act was number intended to companyer involuntary dismantling in execution of orders of companypetent companyrts further the Rent Restriction Act, 1949 passed after Act XX of 1948 did number take any numberice of the prohibition companytained in the said Act In the result he found that the respondent was liable to be ejected in execution of the decree for eviction but as the application had become over a year old it would be struck off the file and the decree holder be at liberty to take out execution of the decree by a fresh application.
The appellate companyrt was of the view that machinery and spare parts were lying practically in all the rooms of the building and the locking and sealing of the factory would result in its closure which would go against the provisions of the above mentioned Act.
By order dated October 11, 1951 he directed the Subordinate Judge to decide the objections under the Act.
As far back as April 1950.
In the result he dismissed the execution petition.
687 of 1965.
That being the position of matters, I set wide the order passed by the Subordinate companyrts and direct the companyrt of execution to give fresh decision on the points that arise under section 3 of Punjab Act XX of 1948.
He had before him the report of the bailiff that possession of the premises companyld number be given over as there were machinery stored therein.
Both parties filed appeals from this order which were dismissed.
The judjement debtors also lost the appeal filed against that dismissal.
an appeal was preferred by the decree holder.
Even before the time to vacate the premises came, one of the judgment debtors filed a suit for a perpetual injunction to restrain the decree holder from obtaining possession in terms of the companysent order of 29th June 1950.
This was on 7th February, 1953.
The Subordinate Judge framed a number of issues including one which read whether the judgment debtors companyld number be dispossessed of the factory and machinery companyld number be dismantled without permission of the Government ?
It appears that the companyrt companysigned the execution proceedings to the record room on July 25, 1953.
This order dated 22nd April 1953 was number challenged by any appeal to the High Court.
The relevant facts are as follows.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
This decree was upheld in appeal and in July 1951 the decree holder applied for execution.
The companyy of a letter from the Extra Assistant Director of Industries to the Chief Inspector of Factories dated July 18, 1951 exhibited at the instance of the judgment debtors, goes to show that the machinery installed in the factory companyld number be removed without 7 Sup.
The Subordinate Judge issued numberices but did number grant stay.
He therefore said as follows On the present record it is number possible for me to decide whether the execution of the decree would defeat the provisions of section 3 of the Punjab Act XX of 1948.
405 of 1958.
Harbans Lal, the late husband of the appellant before us, obtained an order for eviction from the Rent Controller against Lal Chand and Ram Rattan Dass Jain in respect of certain, premises which were being used as a factory.
The suit was dismissed on July 11, 1951.
The decree holder filed a Letters Patent Appeal.
N. Anand, for respondent No.
B. Agarwala and K. P. Gupta, for the appellant.
The Division Bench of the Punjab High Court felt itself unable to help the decree holder because of an earlier decision in the execution proceedings which was held to companystitute res judicata against her.
The judgment debtors went up in appeal to the companyrt of the District Judge.
The matter arises out of an application for execution of an order for possession passed on a companypermise between the parties.
405 of 1956.
The judgment debtors appear to have approached the Department of Industries and informed them of the attempt at their eviction by the, decree holder.
The companyrse of litigation subsequent to the order for eviction in 1950 is truly amazing.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Mitter, J. This is an appeal by special leave from a judgment and order of the Punjab High Court in Letters Patent Appeal No.
