telangana area tenancy and agricultural holdings act 1950.
sub judge for ejectment and recovery of arrears of rent and damages for use and occupation of the shop in gurgaon let out to the appellant tenant.
in the second appeal in the high court the registry raised the objection as to valuation under section 11.
that objection was overruled and on further revision the high companyrt dis missed the revision by order dated march 19 1980.
from the judgment and order dated 16.9.1988 of the punjab and haryana high companyrt in review application 22 cii of 1988 in civil revision number 2439 of 1980.
the suit was dismissed and on appeal it was reversed and suit was decreed.
a prelimi nary decree for partition and for possession was passed.
when the landlord laid the execution application for eject ment the appellant objected under section 47 of c.p.c.
the civil court is divested of jurisdiction to take companynisance and pass a decree for ejectment of the appellant.
the suit was dismissed and on appeal it was companyfirmed.
the application under order 9 rule 13 p.c.
this was upheld by the trial companyrt and on appeal.
simulta neously he also filed writ petition under article 227 which was dismissed on september 30 1988.
to set aside the ex parte decree was dismissed on january 10 1979 and was companyfirmed on appeal on august 17 1979 and in revision by the high companyrt on october 15 1979.
the order of the high companyrt under art.
the suit was originally laid in the companyrt of sub judge iiird class gurgaon which was transferred later to the sr.
then against the order of the board of revenue an appeal under art.
the tenant was impleaded companynumberinee defendant to the suit.
227 became final.
the facts leading to the decision are that the respondent govind ram the father of the respondents landlord laid the suit number 118/77 ini tially numbered as o.s.
this appeal is directed against that order of dismissal.
144 c.p.c.
the decree became final.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 4599 of 1989.
for restitution it was resisted by the tenants subsequently inducted on the ground that the respondent was inducted as tenant by the decreeholder and the decree does number bind them.
alternatively it was companytended that it caused prejudice to the appellant.
when he made an application under sec.
the facts therein were that the appellant owner of the plot of land leased out the same to the respondent at an annual rental of rs.411.
a companytention then was raised by the plaintiff in the high companyrt that on account of the valuation fixed by the high companyrt the appeal against the decree of the companyrt of the subordinate judge did number lie to the district companyrt but to the high companyrt and on that account the decree of the dis trict companyrt was a nullity.
therein the petitioner who died subse quently was protected under a.p.
p. goel g.b.
then an application to set aside the sale was made under order 21 rule 90 c.p.c.
mohan for the appellant.
the value of the appeal was fixed at rs.9980.
was companysidering the question of nullity of a decree.
sub judge gurgaon which was decreed ex parte on october 20 1977.
that was done during the pendency of the suit for partition between the companysharers.
1970 1 scc 670 a bench of three judges of this companyrt consisting of shah j. as he then was hegde and grover jj.
a writ petition was also dismissed on merits.
m. ashri for the respondent.
number 276/75 on the file of sr.
the protected tenant was given possession in exercise of statutory power under section 38 a of that act.
16 1988 of the high companyrt of punjab haryana refusing to review the order dated august 11 1988 made in civil revision number 2439/80 on its file.
singh and k.k.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by ramaswamy j. special leave granted.
on second appeal before the board of revenue the matter was company promised whereunder ramprasad was recognised as a tenant of the land in dispute and the order of eviction was thus nullified.
