IN THE HIGH COURT 0? KARNATAKA A? EAfléALoaE5
DATED THIS THE 1S" DAY of og€pk£:if2c§8 _
BEFpRE' A_
THE HON'BLE MRs.JuéT:¢z_B V ngaéaégnna
HRRP Nos.39i2Qo2;fiéif2Qé2.& 4622602
BE TWEEN
Haayféé/0éf_,§
1 s S*M & SONS" "w*
CARRYING ow BUSINESS IN HOSIERY
.MIN pREM:sEs*No1102 {OLD NO.lO0)
.5 LAKsHMI«apILuING, BALEPET
V-« ~' BAN@ALoRE+S3
v, .32? BY ITS PARTNER SRI.KHIMCHAND
'--'= ~'a 2 ... PETITIONER
(af%sRI $0k VASANTH, ADv.,)
AND ,_ .
-.4-an-«.4-u
'".'" -_j} MANJAMMA, SINCE DECEASED BY HER LR
T' V G.H.PREMAKUMARI, 56 YRS, 9/0 LATE
NANJAMA W/0 M.BASAVARAJ, R/0 No.7
_ 2 ,
5TH DIVISION, GIRLS SCHOOL ROAD
CHICKBALLAPUR
2 RAJANNA SINCE DECEASED BY LRs,mjf 'C'
A)SW%RNAMMA
W/O LATE RAJANNA
MAJOR ;_
R/O ca:cKBALLAPUR'.fm
BBIEIRISH s/0 Lars RAqAB&A'r_ -
MINOR, REP BY_M0THER_swaRNAMA
R/O CHICKBALLAEUR * *' VYn =
C3 HARISH s¢Q_LA?E"R3sAM$A
MINOR} hfiE;BY HdTHER,SfimRNAMMA
3/0 CHT3KB3LL59"5 .;
D)RfiJNITH'S7§fiATEwRAJANNA
MINOR; REP BX"MQTHER SWARNAMMA
A.R/0 CHICKBALLAPUR
".mazé§buIums 3k;a'4 A38 numsrnn V70
=_.a$,_3,4,29e2_
. . . RESPONDENTS
{BY SR: A KRISHNA BHAT. ADV.' FOR R-1;
sR1~3 K SHETTY, Anv., FOR R{A-TO D);
." fifinR&3 a~4 ARE DELETED v/o DT. 3.4.02)
x _ ' THIS HRRP IS FILED U/S.50{1) OF KRC ACT
"j.wRJw.sEc.46(2) or KRC BET p£AIN9r THE COMMON
"= ORDER DATED 11.12.2001 PASSED ow IA No.10 IN
-3-
€.X.P.NO.86l1/93 ow THE: FILE! 0:? xi:-.'}:~.DDLT.%_".1~:c;-Q8611/93 on THE FILE or THE II ADDL.
'Snag; CAUSES JUDGE, BANGALORE, DISMISSING IA
V_ Nb;X FILED U/O 21 I2 97 TO 101 cpc CLAIMIM3
J"ff?ExANcy RIGHTS.
_ 7 -
THESE HRRPs COMING C»: Rflk fiEA§1§e"i%istg
BAY, THE COURT MADE THE FeLzew1Nq:_"
ORDERt'
..._.._.............--........._
These three feyisiefie fietitiefié ate filed
by the app1tcantsLefiethed £@ié§fl1.A.Nos.X, XI
and XVI ;'§§£oré_ ;t5e'vwfi6ufitE':below, being
aggrievee eb§"*th¢*5$ism§égg1' of the same by
ordetHeetedtfiietéeéflfitxie Execution Petition
No.8é11?l993;e}e"
-
‘ 5?. V The Htelevant facts «of “the case are
t’.thattenefS¢t.Nanjamma and her son Sri Rajanna
‘ I
who ,a:e? since deceased and Rajanna being
‘x;epteeented by his legal representatives, had
t{tfiied an eviction petition in HRC No.2844/1981
~ against the tenants in respect of premises
bearing No.100 and 102 which shall hereinafter
be referred to as the ‘scheduletjprefiieee’h,
under Section 23_<1)(a), §'fi')';'-.(_hr.; .;.-:fi;iih1(:p-;l'«a§$~§
the Karnataka Rent CQntrel_ Bet, i;961«.a§n,it_
then existed, before the Court of Smaii Causesi
at Bangalore. By ;the;kbfiaer Wjateflh"28:3.1987,
the said evictioh pe:i:i§n:§a§ allowed under
Section 21iiy!h)§ eireetifig_ the tenants to
vacate the prefiieegihithih six mnths frem the
date of_thegor&er. Being aggrieved by the said
oraer,t'..V_CR:9 ':sz§'.'~1é:'3:}:iA! i'987 and CR? 550.1262/1987
wag preferre§"hy the tenants. This Court, by
'*e:;._rderWeiatefiremi$es to the landlords viz., Nanjamma and
“i*~~§ajanna. During the pendency of the said
revision petitions, Rajanna died on 30.10.1987
£4.
-9-
and his legal repreaentatives were brought on
record.
3. Subsequently, on _Hw}8,iQ:i§93t!Fr
execution petition was fiied fly agxy the iegai
representatives of »:Rajanna= in. .Execution=
Petition No.8611/1993.”*:t is éigfiifiegnt that
though Nanjamma’Qas sh0fiflta$”3 petitioner in
theaexecfition§petition,oehe had not signed the
same apd_tn¢tei§:§ had not joined the legal
representatives of Rajanna in preferring the
fl”.saicVexecptionwoetition. During the pendency
E= oi the Said execution petition, an application
has fiilefi by one Maganlal under Order XXI Rule
i”_97 to 99 CPC {I.A.No.2) contending that he is
‘Xithe son of one of the tenants in respect of
. the schedule premises. During the pendency of
the said application, Nanjamma died on
2&4
J1
-19..
28.8.1996. I.A.No.2 came to be diefiieeefl§hy_
an order dated 16.11.199;;6A._
challenge made to the said other and fienee§
the same has attained’fina1it§. V
4. Subsequently; :gR}Ne.8 was filed by
the petitioner,g””G.H.?:eeekefiefi in HRRP
No.21/2QQi un§er~$eetion :51 of CPC seeking to
imleadlfiereeifi–eeLone of the decreemholders
an tfig_g;ouge teat she was one of the legal
representatives of Nanjamma and also a legatee
l”.gnde§l the will’ executed by Nanjamma dated
:=l2i.1.i9gé;.} The legal representative of
Rejanna who is one of the joint decree-holders
l”_in the eviction petition objected to the said
iviapfilication and the Court below dismissed the
esaid application.
,2«/,.
– 11 –
5. Being aggrieved by thg”i$aifi:~@rder rr
passed by the Executing C§fir£;’$R$*fi0;6$9]1§97
was filed before this icfiurt _wn;¢n ifi3s;r
however, dismissed bf”;§rderV”détéd i§ri.1997V
confirming the i§rderi:§a$$§&_ by itfie trial
Court.
6.€ Wfiefiwimaffifirsaréfpofi thus, I.A.Nos.X
and XI Qérewfiie§R§y_tfi§ petitioners in HRRP
No.3§72GO2″afidCH§Ré”flb.40/2002 under Order XXI
Rule _ 9? . CFC .7r$ising objections to the
i”.éXécfi£i6n by éfifitending that they were tenants
i*iwfi§ $r§”ifid§cted into the schedule premises by
the ;;e’t.i.:*iioner in HRRP No.21/2002.
7. I.A.No.XVI was filed by the
rpetitioner in HRRP No.21/2002 under Order XXI
Rules 97 to 101 C90 raising objections to the
&’
…1_2_
execution petition. By’ an;”¢r§§ffl
by the said order, the §fipl;céfit:ifi I;A.No.XVI
before the Cour£7_bé1q§i”hg%r_preferred HRRP
No.21/2002.randr~t5¢vr§§néfir§ijQho are the
app1icahf%!¢§%:.$.§.#r§;¥ éfid; xx before the
courguvfie;§§;_fi§§¢rF§§é§§r§é§ HRRP No3.39/2002
andtéfl/fidfizgrrépégrively.
fit Sihré éfig getitioners are aggrieved
by é=comfiofi or@er dated 11.12.2001, all the
. rrgvisionrapetitions have been connected and
: .HeardFtQg@fher and disposed of by this order.
“9. 1 have heard Sri A.Krishna Bhat,
r:iéérned counsel for the petitioner in HRRP
“TNo.2l/2002, Sri H.K.Shetty, learned counsel
3:.
-u—.._
– 13 –
for the respondent/ legal represent.e_t’hiVVe:s ._ of”
Rajanna and Sri K.K.Vasanth,
who appears for the pe’ti_tiofi’e_rS iiotifxei
two revision petitions shae’-. the
submissions of Sri it
10. it: ieii$hbfiitt§§¥hofi”woeha1f of the
petitioherehthet sigh; hhmeti, the petitioner
in _’ other than the
naturaii who is one of the
joigt”decree§ho1ders in the HRC petition and
the legatee under the will and
i”‘t_hoje§;h’4:”her:”‘vr:ight is through Nanj amma, during
the pehdehcy of the execution petition, she
it 1-“3C1_ obtained possession of a portion of the
“”:~fVVc’he:<;iule premises and thereafter let out the
"same to the petitioners in HRRP Nos.39/2002
and 40/2002 and therefore, they being in
:§£4t
-14-
possession, the decree could not fhave. been
executed against them. Its -is, ifurtnezii.
submitted that on an apniication filed finfier
Order XXI Rule 97 or’gnder!Rule;§§iQ?C; the;
Executing Court ought to hold an enfiuiry and
that the procedfife undef”Qtcer XXI Rule 100
CFC applies and it is angibgofis to a suit and
therefore; étneitconftieheiowi erred in not
holdino en efiquirg on their applications and
summe;i}y:’dis$issing= the said applications.
He therefore reqnésts this Court to set aside
».c-At5§ impugneo order and direct the Court below
“tcV;ecohd evidence on their applications and
thereafter, pass orders in accordance with
law”._H_ 3
11. Per contra, it is submitted on
behalf of the respondents that subsequent to
fl»
, ;5 _
the order passed by this Court in too ¢i§i1
Revision Petitions confirming theilordofn of “.
eviction, the legal represéntatifies of Rojénna
who is one of ‘the joint ‘qéc§ee4h¢iae:é fh§d,
filed. the exeoutioni”. pétitionfiiiooéotingw
possession of the schéduio pgemioés ond the
other joint decree;holdeE5boifig late Nanjamma
under whom tho potitionof in HER? No.21/2002
viz.g Prémé_KuoarjRgs said to have derived her
title could’notfhafié”maintained an application
under ofoeg XXI Rfiie 97 to 101 cpc and that
ii” when her statoé fias that of a joint decree-
i»fioidefpii$ho~ was not a stranger to the
prooeedifig although she had not joined others
t»in tho execution of the said decree and that
udttho application filed by her viz., I.A.XVI was
R””tM_not maintainable and that she had no locus
standi to file that application by contending
fix
-15-
that there was obstruction in the exeeutienflefih
the decree en the ground that she has ebteineé«V
pessession whereas, such an;apnlication:eeuld,
have been nmintainad eniy twee: deereeeheiderh
against a stranger g”an§nh:thetefore} the
application was riehtlfixfejeetefi by the Court
below. He~Ljfufithef£ issbmitsr that the
applicatierins—.V”I’§V’A.§N-Q’3:;’§£4.. _x3: filed by the
petitioners in HRH? hosts?/2002 and 40/02 who
claim right; tiege and interest through Frema
Kumari cofild net have Haintained the same as
. w_t5é§ had {m2 hetter right or £1 higher right
Ewthan’tErema=LKumari and hence. the Executing
Ceurt_risht1y dismissed the said applications.
.12s Both the counsel have relied upon
i tfeettain decisions which shall be adverted to
(I
13.
submissions, the points _that atiséj fog. my”
consideration are as follonsrfio 1V.o,’ g¢-7f
_Qiin’ %HRRP;L
1.
-17..
Taking note of
Whether the _ petitioner
No.21/2002 and rpetitionefs :hi HRRPi
No.39/2Gfi2_and HERE No.40/20¢2 could
‘”noyo§nainfiéineé an application under
‘iord§:fnxxi~»Ru1es 97 to 101 CPC
aia@ainstVnnother joint decree holder?
“,If ‘fifiéi answer to point No.1 is in
%’iLno negative, whether ting Executing
~i§Court was justified in dismissing
the applications filed by the
revision
&
petitioners in these
petitions?
tné2″f7:i§ai~
-18..
14. The relationship between_.t_Pj1″e.V.piartiéa
in these cases are not in
Raj anna and Prema Kumazi a1:’e the Ch’ii.icir”en1–. of V’
late Nanjamma and Nanj’;”iéeartV;:.r.i1z3_ an£.’i~.V_ had
filed the Q;-esooottvvvof the
schedule premises an order
of evictiorg” this Court,
execution: only the legal
No doubt , Nanj amma
who * the’ decreeholder had not
p1:ef.e.I:1:edu”a_fivexeoution petition. It is also
‘V “not~-tiirfidisputévwtfiat Prema Kumari, apart from
“fl<:i,a_i.1ghter of Nanjamma, has also
1n<2§penae%;:§-.tiy ciaimed right, title and
Z"'~.__V"*iAnte:5e.at in respect of the schedule property
'A T:."V»b13'.,_*}irtue of a will said to have been executed
Nanjamma on 21.1.1987. At this stage, it
is relevant to mention that Enema Kumari had
&.
-19..
preferred I.A.VIII in the
petition with a prayer to~'”impl&e;’3d as
one of the decreeho1ders._A.h~e1:’«.
from Nanj arruna and alisolliigayn the ‘ the’
will executed by lganj ‘1 . The
said application the ground
that she Vf.3£-‘.LI’1_u’>t on record as
Nanj amma-f execut ion petition
and partition suit pending in
0. the validity of the
wi1,l..wae””tobde iadijdudicated and that Nanjamma
‘ ‘made. enquiry held with regard to
by one Maganlal in the
Ex.ecqtihr}*AiCourt that she had not executed any
The said application for impleadment
dismissed and the same was upheld by this
V. ,_._*:”.’ourt, by its order dated 4.2.199′? in CR?
No.689/199′? which has attained finality.
/’
_ go _
Therefore, the status claimed by Brema Khmari ”
was in fact as as decreefholeer although she
was not permitted to be_imfileaded, Sash EeinoV»
the case, the question for consideration is as
to whether Prema’kfimari;;hein§aa joint decreer
holder, could hayeisfilefi ,gfiffia§p1ication in
I.A.No.XVI sneer erder fifil Rule 97 CFC raising
objection to the eg§§u£isn’§£ the decree on
the graundighgg she had ohtained possession of
the la§heau:§7jr§g§¢§ses and had inducted
t&32n§erl’ V
ul’l$ae fit «this stage, it is relevant to
rater to the provisions of Order XXI Rules 97
V”»to lOl so as to answer point No.1 with regard
xletoilthe maintainability of the application
E”.__fi1&d by the petitioner in HRRP No.21/2902.
Order XXI Rule 97 CFC deals with resistance or
/451/.
_ 22 _
16. On a conspectua readingjiofhitheeea
provisions, it becomes, _eleag- Mghatio 35*.”
application under Rule 97 of Gide: xi: nan he
maintained. only’ by Q; person_ who, claims an.
independent right and nQ£aa=;;ght”either under
the judgment dehtot-otjaioeoneeholder. This
13 the Settiefi P§5iti°§=§fi ia§§h But, in the
instant ca3g§;§s£;angei§; tag application has
claims to be a
joint=Ideereé;5§1eeraWin one breath and an
indepenoent person who has let out possession
‘ *- of the sohednie premises to tenants in another
‘7, breath, 7 .33 already’ noticed, an application
wae fiied by Prema Kumari contending that she
t~Ais uaeijoint decreeholder along with Rajanna
W ‘Claiming right, title and interest through her
_ mother Nanjamma. Such being the position, she
could not have maintained an application under
I}; .
-23..
Rules 97 to 99 of Order XXI ef flC$¢R”hYia
contending that she was a sttaagerfahdehafi an
independent right bye viftee offiibeihgiVin,
possession of a portien of” the? eteeertyt
Hence, in my opifiion?N£fie_%§?1iC%£i5fi itself
was not nmihtainabie ah@ eeefitito have been
dismisseefliiei iimihe th§tvthei Court below.
Similafiygiethe»Eefieiieatéehs filed by the
‘§::§5;39/2002 and 40/2002
since they claim
right, titieeane ihterest through Prema Kumari
fl”._§he;Yfiia_ not “have tttt the locus etandi ‘or an
-indefiehdent right to maintain such an
application. Therefore, the said applications
V”_;ale0a ought to have been rejected at the
i*threshe1d. Therefore, point No.1 is held
} against the petitioners for the aforesaid
reasons and the applications filed by them
-25-
application filed by one Maganlal.
said order dated l6.ll.996, the o§u:£f£ei§wV«
has recorded that the teVidenceolon_lrecordi
establishes that there wee a colineion between
the applicant (MaganlalT,and”P,W,fi5f§aeatarajd
ohusband of Prema_xumarii]afie_Naajammai(p.w.3)
who was under tne camera; oi FfWO2U It is
further stated Nanjamma was not in a position
to mote afloat au¢*£¢ patalytic stroke and day-
to–day,*her healtn had deteriorated and that
in 1989 itself, sfie was not in a position to
ll”-‘pet fvhet Signature and therefore, the
‘i,$eignateteeL}at Ex.P.1 to 9 could not be
acceptedgl The Court below also observed that
t» the etidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 on I.A.No.II could
ll*not be believed and that the applicant
f(Maganlal} was not an independent tenant under
Nanjamma, the first decreeholder and that she
&
_ 25 _
was not in possession of the schedule”-._prem.i’e-es.,1 V’
having an independent right; i0h. the’
the said findings, I.A.:1.iwgé,<ais@:ssed"»§na*.
there being no chal1enge""t«t}3. the it
has attained finaiityifflafitfit#eoset§etions of
the Court below' lends
support to on account
of the"; f;5¢is¢a;":j§§,j~:.A.uo.::, the
and XVI were also
rej ecteeti an enquiry. In my
\é'iex.,:–,.e j tfie Court vbelow was justified in
thevviiébfialications *-I.A.Nos.X, XI and
tutti *£i1¢é} finder Grder xx: Rules 97 to 99
wi*t__hotri;~ an enquiry thereon.
1.8. I aim supported in my View by the
.,V_..cEie<.:ision of this Court reported in ILR 2003
KAR 660 in the case of (SR1 RAMACHANDRA vs
&.
..27..
sMT.KEMPAMMA AND cmnans) wherehi it it helc t.
that Order xxx Rule 97 cpc in ap§1tca§1g to a.
person. who claims ant independent_ right tnot*,
either under the judgnent _debtor:tor@ucecree
holder and that genyf t§ttg5″.c1atmiat right
under the. decree _holde# gagj er iessee cannot
invoke the n§o§i$tQu§fyf finder fix: Rule 97 of
CPC. Fron the §5ot§?§t¢tsion; it becomes clear
that an anglicent figs t5 have an independent
right fiin_ snag; itfir maintain an application
under_Oraer XKI Rule 97 C90 and not either as
fl’.a”dééteé.ho1dé£ or a judgment debtor. In the
” instant cése, however, it is ununderstandable
as. a joint decree holder could have
Vatmaintained an application resisting execution
i> of the delivery warrant by contending that she
. had put tenants in possession of a portion of
the schedule premises. Kgfi/¢,
-28..
19. In the case of Vie
KANNAN AND erases reported’-,in;”‘JTi§’ 2064″
the Hon’b1e Supreme Cc;t_1_1′:s*;.. was».efVti1e”A.3rj<._ew _i§thVet._'°.
when there is ne pf irewsiiziengce from
the side of V }#?$5:_r¢iGiCf-Qioniistvs, the
app1ication'.V.unde35– 97 of CPC
eught te" of the above
reasoning this judgment,
* instant case, has not
predueeei so show that she was in
pd~tsseeeion"~.eAf the suit schedule premises and
';"f:,;rtheAr.:'"£:h_et she is entitled to maintain an
under Order 21 Rule 97, CPC and
suheviieehiéng one of the joint decree holders and
it iiiew of the finding given earlier by the
ti'-Zitrial Court while disposing of I.A.No.II,
it can be safely held that on the basis of
fie.
-29..
the decision of Hon’t:-le
petitioners herein failed,..iizfoufi.;e.1,ibet~a’nt’ti.atei
their plea that .»f:h_ey v”x;{e’re
possession of the scheciuiv1e_VV premises ‘fin their
own right and hm-2_zrf)’–ce f(;r.i’.”~t_h,e’«.M3aid reason, a
further enquiry with’=.rec;arci’to”w–.that aspect was
not nece_$%~;ar5y._. . ”
<fah'~–"also be placed on
another_ Hon' ble Supreme Court
in_the'i<:.asve ofA'$iI;§?'ER FORUM PVT. LTD. VS RAJIV
ANDAAVANQTHER reported in (1998) 3 sec
it has been held that a third
'party 't:o.t:;the decree who offers resistance or
obstruction to execution of the decree would
within the ambit of Rule 1.01. of Order 21
GCPC, if an adjudication is warranted as a
consequence of the resistance or obstruction
/%
-39..
made by him to the executienof th’e’v*cie<:jfee*._ i'Jr_<':'-"
doubt if the resistance "tem'ac'ie'
transferee pendente Viite
debtor, the scope of tfould be
shrunk to the ".v:q1;1»e:etVi.'eAn"whether he is
such a trans.fveree.VV–~–a.§,n:ci in the
the execution
court has no right to
resist clear language contained
in Rule cpc. Exclusion of such
a t:;':'ar'ssferee__f'rom' raising further contentions
the salutary principle enunciated
52 of the Transfer of Property '
.215 The Court further states that under
V' 'ff€2x!Vrtier 21 Rule 9?, CFC the question which
legally arise for determination between the
fix
.x
cinna-
.. 31 ..
parties only will have to be determined by the
Execution Court. In other words, the Court is
not obliged to determine a question_t~V~1fee_<rely
because the resistor raised it.
held that the third party;,…..:gho _'{:i'tié';'etViofiS'..the"".
validity of a transfer
holder to an assignee,_v"'*~cannotV c1eiim§._'tv!–'zeti the,"
question regarding it_svVV:'q\_Ia3:idit"y.:_should be
decided _A proceedings. It is
further 4' held' Z-t'he_it._:"edjudication mentioned in
Or§i'evr_ ,V"Ru.ie9;7(2} need not necessarily
.in*Ici5IteVVi'A~e deteiiied enquiry or collection of
: Court can make the adjudication
on a.dr'ui?t'ted facts or even on the averments
.An3ade".–i:;ay the resister.
22. Learned Counsel for the petitioners
has relied upon the dictum laid down by the
&
-32-
Supreme Court in the case of BRAHMDEO
CHAUDHARY Vs RISHIKESH PRASAD JAISWAL AND
ANOTHER reported in AIR 1997 supamma ceugrrass
in order to highlight about the fégfiémg.
enunciated in the statutory~provisidfifof,Crderr
21 Rule 97 to 103 cpc whieh ash; eompiggéigaae
for resolving all Vdisputes_ pertaining tea
execution of decree fer pessessidn ebtained by
a idecreegheider}a_and-W whose attempts at
executihg ‘the -3316» decree meet with rough
weatherr Eh this Secision, it is stated that
fl” _ehee*freaistahee is offered by a “purported
runstrafiger%Fto the decree and which comes to be
Anote§’b§ the Executing Court as well as by the
iAAQeeree–holder, the remedy available to the
‘gideeree-holder against such aux obstructionist
-;is only Order XXI, Rule 97 sub-rule (1) and he
cannot bypass such obstruction and insist on
y
-33-
issuance of warrant for passe-esionAzdder’-..Crder”
21, Rule 35 with the help ‘gf p§g1;i’c»e”.rfofeeV,._’t’e;s:’
that course would amcunt
circumventing the proce’ci:3:V’;:fe_VV under
Order 21 Rule 97′ retrieval of
obstruction Aef to the
decree. View on
the by the Hon’ble
Suprezhe decision in no way
assists petitioners, inasmuch
as, they c}-..aAAizn”‘t.1;ir<::Ltgh a joint decree holder
aririlication under Order 21 Rule
as strangers to the decree,
which already held are not maintainable
VV"a3_ti'1.ere is no person who is a stranger to the
."d_Vecree who is alleged to have obstructed in
…the execution of the decree. Rather, in my
view, these applicants, who are the
%
-34..
petitioners, infect are causing obstruction in
the execution of the decree obtained by Late
Nanjamma and Late Rajanna and which deoree is
being executed by the tegal represehtatiVeefof*
Rajanna. .~w-_
23. Learned Cbunsel for the fiwiitionerea
has also relied upon enotherideeieion in the
case N.S.S. NARA£f;émp. Vs M/S.
GOLD§_I’O£~§_E’.’ __'(£’>) LT£).,. AND OTHERS
reporte<i–,ii'nV'P;IR._ SC 251 to contend that
.~M. Order 21 Rfiie 93 to 103 CPC is a clear scheme,
'~Qhereifr"the legislature has 'veetedr right in
ithe Exeeuting Court to deal with all issues
relating to such matters and. that in the
i'_inetant ease, the Execution Court ought to
ehave ordered that an enquiry on the
applications filed by the petitioners herein,
e.
..35..
rather than,
applications without recordinqjthenevideneer
The proposition laid, dawn Tin’ thier.§ecieionio
have to be harmoniouslfh reao*.Qithl§another
decision of Hon’hle-Sfiereeeeeourt referred to
above viz., _repoArt_e_dtV 3 sec 723,
wherein, “iit}D bee ieheenihisteted that the
adj of Order 21 cpc
woulovtetetgleee only when the question raised
have legally e§isen”between the parties and
consequently such questions are relevant for
l’consideretion and determination between the
t~§a;£1és, Since it has been already held by me
that sthet applications themselves were not
“‘maintainable, in View of the circumstance of
‘gpetitioner viz., Premakumari, who derived such
i=. right, interest and title over the schedule
property through one of the joint decree
flr
summarily dismissing ._the, °
– 35 –
holder v:i.z., Nanjamma and there
obstructor who has been ihnatned.’
applications, the Court._belew:”w_as
not adjudicating the reeerdingii
the evidence as
24. eyes; the ,a£oresaie Wreasons, these
RevisionuV’E?eti–i?;:i,en.e’ and the Court
be:I.Oi«T di’i~.e:”<:1Li'es:;1.4"i"If;:<i5"*–.initiate further steps in
acct) rdaingcze _wit h' .
ii ._.1\t stage, learned Counsel for
1: the ;§e§it1¢ne:= in HRRP No.39/02 and 40/02
ei1_bmi..t~:§_vi”j’..-that some time may be given to the
_Apet:’Lt._i”oners to vacate the premises and hand
‘–..V’e.v_er the vacant possession. The same is
qiobjected to by the learned Counsel for the
respondent. In View cf the feet that I have
&: