- (1.)This petition takes exception to order dtd. 12/3/2020 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Vth Additional Judge to the Court of Ist Civil Judge, Class - II (Trainee Judge), District-Sehore (M.P.) in Execution Case No.4/2019, allowing an application under Order XXVI Rule 9 of CPC, filed by respondent No.1/decree- holder. The decree-holder, in his application before the Executing Court had pleaded that the petitioners/objectors are the tenants on the portion adjoining to the tenancy portion of Emmanuel School and have encroached upon the part of the area of tenanted part of Emmanuel School by erecting a wall. There are two separate areas which were given on rent; one was in the possession of Emmanuel School and another was in possession of the present petitioners/objectors. In the map filed along with the civil suit, both the areas are clearly demarcated and, the area over which encroachment by present petitioners/objectors is made, is not the part of their tenancy as the same was part of tenancy area of Emmanuel School.
(2.)In reply to the aforesaid application, the petitioners/objectors have pleaded that the dispute relating to Civil Suit No.167-A/2016 was compromised between the parties of the said suit on 27/10/2018 and, accordingly, the same was decreed. The petitioners/objectors have nothing to do with the said decree. However, on the strength of the compromise decree, neither their tenancy can be disturbed nor they can be evicted from any of the part which is not the subject matter of the compromise decree. According to them, there was a Civil Suit No.81-A/2006 relating to their tenancy which is presently pending as S.A.No.442/2012 before this Court in which stay has been granted in their favour and the same is still in operation.
(3.)Shri Avinash Zargar learned counsel for the petitioners/objectors, in support of his arguments, has relied upon the decision in the case of Vadlamani Suryanarayana Murthy Vs. Saripalli Balakameswari, 2007 2 ALD 94