IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.426 of 2007 DILIP CHOUDHARY @ DILIP KUMAR, SON OF LATE BHAGAT CHOUDHARY, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE – NAURANGA, POLICE STATION – BEGUSARAI TOWN, DISTRICT – BEGUSARAI. … DEFENDANT/PETITIONER Versus 1. PREM KUMAR TIBREWAL, SON OF LATE BRAJ MOHAN LAL AGRAWAL. 2. SMT. KIRAN DEVI, WIFE OF PREM KUMAR TIBREWAL, BOTH RESIDNET OF MOHALLA – MIYACHAK, POLICE STATION – BEGUSARAI TOWN, DISTRICT – BEGUSARAI. … PLAINTIFF/OPPOSITE PARTIES ----------- For the Petitioner:- Mr. Rajeeva Roy, Advocate Mr. Amrendra Kumar Singh No.-1, Advocate 03/ 17.08.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This civil revision has been filed on behalf of the defendant-petitioner challenging order dated 23.12.2006 passed by learned Sub-Judge – I, Begusarai rejecting the affidavit filed by him stating some facts and for giving an opportunity for adducing evidence in accordance thereof in Misc. Case No. 01 of 2002. 3. The aforesaid matter arises out of Title Eviction Suit No. 10 of 1989 which was filed by the opposite parties for eviction of the petitioner on the ground of personal necessity. The said suit was contested by the defendant- petitioner whereafter it was decreed on 11.02.1999 by the learned trial court after holding that there was relationship 2 of landlord and tenant between the parties, the plaintiff had personal necessity of the suit premises and partial eviction would not satisfy the requirement of the plaintiff. The said judgment of eviction was challenged by the defendant- petitioner in civil revision before this court which was dismissed. 4. However, for execution of the aforesaid decree of eviction, Execution Case No. 2 of 1999 was filed by the plaintiff (opposite party) and during the pendency of the execution case, Misc. Case 01 of 2002 was filed by the defendant-judgment debtor-petitioner challenging the executability of the eviction decree. 5. It further transpires that the said miscellaneous case continued for a long period and finally a petition was filed in the year 2006 in it to accept his affidavit about the plea that from order dated 13.09.1991 it was apparent that the plaintiff-decree holder made false and fraudulent statements and obtained a fraudulent decree regarding 1 Khata 03 dhurs of land and that the plaintiff-decree holder further adduced false pleading in which they have showed “two paccua room double story” as part of suit premises and also to allow him to adduce evidence in that respect. 3 6. The learned court below considered the entire matter in detail and thereafter came to the conclusion vide impugned order dated 23.12.2006 that the said affidavit filed by the petitioner cannot be treated as an evidence nor he can be given any opportunity of adducing evidence with regard to a case which is pending for execution of a decree which had been affirmed up till the Hon’ble Apex Court 7. In the said facts and circumstances, this Court does not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order of the learned court below. Accordingly, this civil revision is dismissed with a direction to expedite the proceeding. kundan (S. N. Hussain, J.)