- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. By means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 14.5.2012 passed by Judge, Small Causes Court rejecting their application under Order 21 Rule 97 and 101 read with Section 151 C.P.C. as well as revisional order dated 14.5.2013. The facts leading to the present dispute may be briefly stated as under. Smt. Zaibun Nisa and Smt. Shamun Nisa alongwith their mother late Smt. Ashgari Begum filed a suit before Judge, Small Causes Court on 20.4.1992 against Nazim Ali (respondent No. 3 herein) for ejectment and arrears of rent on the allegations that he was a tenant in the disputed property and was in arrears of rent and the tenancy was terminated. In the said suit, Smt. Noorjahan and Shahnoor, the petitioners herein moved an application under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 C.P.C. for being impleaded in the proceedings on the allegation that Smt. Zaibun Nisa and Smt. Shamun Nisa had wrongly filed the suit alleging themselves to be the landlady and the property in dispute was purchased by one Smt. Shakina Begum from Bhurey Khan by means of registered sale-deed dated 28.12.1961. She made an oral hiba dated 27.2.1988 in favour of Allah Bux. The tenant Nazim Ali, who was in occupation of the ground floor in the premises in dispute, vacated the same on 30.7.1991 and handed over the possession to Allah Bux. It was further alleged that the house in dispute was purchased by them from Allah Bux by means of registered sale-deed dated 2.3.1993 and were in occupation and possession thereof. Judge, Small Causes Court vide order dated 4.9.2000 allowed the impleadment application. Smt. Zaibun Nisa and Smt. Shamun Nisa alongwith their mother Ashgari Begum challenged the order of the Small Causes Court by filing a revision, which was allowed by District Judge, Aligarh vide order dated 3.4.2006. Against the said order, the petitioners herein approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 24355 of 2006, which was dismissed vide judgment and order dated 9.10.2006.
(2.) It was observed by this Court that "after vacation of the house by Shri Nazim Ali and subsequent sale by Allah Bux, the petitioners cannot claim to have any right, title or interest in the said house. If the petitioners desire to claim right, title or interest, they have to file their own independent suit regarding title and ownership and prove the same before the competent Court." This order attained finality, as it was not challenged.
(3.) Scc Suit was decreed and the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein put the decree in execution. In the execution proceedings, the petitioners moved an application under Order 21 Rule 97 and 101 read with Section 151 C.P.C. to resist their dispossession from the property in dispute. Executing Court rejected the application against which a revision was preferred, which was also dismissed.;