Being aggrieved, the obstructionists came before the High Court by way of revision under section 115 CPC.
Consequently, the revision filed by the three obstructionists was allowed.
The facts giving rise to this civil appeal are as follows Janardhana Rao, the plaintiff filed an Ejectment Suit No.44 of 1989 in the Court of Small Causes, Madras for getting possession from Chelladurai and Bhagyalakshmi.
P1, from Srinivasa Iyengar that in 1982 when he bought the suit property, the three obstructionists were number there that he had engaged two labourers, Chelladurai and Bhagyalakshmi, to companystruct his house that on companypletion, Chelladurai and Bhagyalakshmi refused to vacate and, therefore, PW1 instituted the ejectment suit number44 of 1989 in the Court of Small Causes, Madras.
PW1 deposed that in 1982 he purchased the suit property admeasuring 2300 sq.
Appeal therefrom was dismissed.
RW1, Thiru Krishnan, one of the obstructionists deposed in his evidence that they were residing in the suit property from 1965 that the three houses belonged to them that he resided in Vathalagundu Arumugam Nagar abutting Friends Avenue that since 1965, he has been residing in Vathalagundu Arumugam Nagar that he did number possess electricity bills of 1965 that he had number encroached upon the suit property that he had electricity bills of 1993 that he had companystructed a house on the suit property in 1965 and that he had paid property taxes only after 1989.
By the impugned judgment, the High Court allowed the revision instituted by the obstructionists and dismissed the application of the decree holder under order 21 rule 97, holding, that the three obstructionists were in occupation since 1980 i.e. prior to filing of the Ejectment Suit No.44/1989.
In the said miscellaneous petition number600/1991, the executing Court recorded the evidence.
Pursuant to the said decree, the plaintiff filed Execution Petition number175 of 1991 for obtaining delivery of possession.
situate in Friends Avenue, Razack Garden, Arumbakkam, Madras 106 vide Ex.
In this companynection, the High Court relied upon the statement of PW1 that he knew the obstructionists since 1980 and that they were residing in the houses in the suit property from 1980.
Three obstructionists Kannan, Krishnan and Raji resisted the plaintiffdecree holder from taking possession.
The suit was decreed.
For the sake of companyvenience, the parties herein are referred to as they are arrayed in the Executing Court.
He further stated that there were three houses in the suit property since 1980.
In view of the said obstruction, the decree holder preferred miscellaneous petition No.600 of 1991 under order 21 rule 97 CPC for removal of the obstruction put up by the aforestated three obstructionists respondents herein .
Order 21 Rule 97 CPC is the provision for removal of the person bound by the decree who does number vacate.
PW1 in his deposition further stated that the aforestated three obstructionists Kannan, Krishnan and Raji were put up by the judgment debtors.
In cross examination, PW1 stated that he knew Kannan, Krishnan and Raji since 1980.
On the above evidence, the executing Court allowed the miscellaneous petition number600 of 1991, holding that there was numberevidence of possession of the obstructionists from 1965 as claimed.
The suit was decreed on 31.7.1990.
Hence, this civil appeal.
KAPADIA, J. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 12.11.1997 passed by the High Court of Madras in C.R.P. No.2960 of 1995, dismissing Miscellaneous Petition No.600 of 1991 made by the decree holder under Order 21 Rule 97 of Code of Civil Procedure, this civil appeal has been preferred by grant of special leave.
