Thereafter the respondent No.
The Executing Court directed an enquiry into the said application of respondent No.
720 of 1990, arising out of an order dated August 24, 1990 passed by the Executing Court Additional Munsif and Judicial Magistrate No.
24 of 1981.
The respondent No.
He also made an application for grant of temporary injunction.
2 in the disputed shop against which this appeal has been preferred.
2 and therefore, rejected his application for temporary injunction.
539 of 1985, for injunction and declaration to the effect that he was occupying the shop in question as a tenant of the appellant and, therefore, he companyld number be disposed from the shop in question in execution of decree against the predecessor in interest of respondent No.
Consequently, the appellant moved another application on May 6, 1981 for execution of the decree with an application for police aid.
Thereafter, the appellant filed a fresh application for issuance of warrant of possession with police help.
1 herein.
The appellant approached the High Court in revision which was also dismissed by the impugned order dated November 24, 1992, affirming the order of the Executing Court with regard to the determination of right of the respondent No.
An appeal against the said order was dismissed by the Additional District Judge and the said order was maintained in revision by the High Court.
The Executing Court by its order dated November 15, 1981 issued warrant of eviction with police help.
The respondent No.
The High Court by its order dated February 26, 1985 disposed of the revision with the observation that if the person resisting the execution of decree had any right or interest independent of the judgment debtor he will have a right to obstruct or resist the execution of decree in accordance with the provisions of Order 21 Rule 97 of the Code and in that event an enquiry would be made.
The respondent No.
The appellant filed Execution of the said decree for possession which was dismissed in default on August 4, 1978.
The appellant approached the High Court in Revision challenging the said order of the Executing Court directing an enquiry into the application of objector respondent No.
The Civil Court found numberprima facie case in favour of respondent No.
The appellant obtained a decree for possession of the shop in question on July 12, 1971, against Hafiz Abdul Bamad, the predecessor in interest of respondent No.
A numberice was issued by this Court to the respondents.
The shop in question belonging to the appellant was let out to one Hafiz Abdul Samad.
The Executing Court rejected the said application on August 24, 1990.
2 Girraj instituted a Civil Suit on August 16, 1986, being Civil Suit No.
2 Girraj resisted the execution of warrant for possession and made an application before the Executing Court under Order 21 Rule 97 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure hereinafter referred to as the Code claiming himself to be the tenant of the appellant.
1 did number appear though served with numberice.
2 Girraj refused to accept the numberice and did number appear on the date of hearing of this appeal.
Faizan Uddin, J. Leave granted.
This appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution of India has been directed against the order dated November 24, 1992 passed by the High Court of Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench, dismissing the appellants Civil Revision Petition No.
