Basudeva Panigraht, J. - (1.) This revision is directed against an order passed in Misc. Case No. 1138/86 on an application under Order 6 Rule 17 C. P. C by the petitioners. The Misc. Case No. 1138/86 arose out of an application filed by the transferee/decree holder under Order 21 Rule 97 C P.C. read with Rule 208 of the Civil Rules and Orders filed by the opposite parties Nos. 1 and 2. It is, inter alia, alleged that at the time of execution of the decree of the Ejectment Execution Case No 168/86 the petitioners along with the opposite parties Nos 3 to 7 refused to vacate and opposed in giving delivery of the suit premises and, therefore, the Bailiff apprehending serious breach of peace returned the writ of possession un-executed. Thereafter the opposite parties/decree holders filed an application for granting police help while executing the writ by the Bailiff These petitioners filed a separate written objection against the said application for police help. They, inter alia, alleged that they being in rightful possession of the suit premises, they shall not be bound by the decree. The petitioners had also earlier filed an application under Order 21 Rule 101 C. P. C. which was registered as a separate Misc. Case but it was subsequently treated as an objection to the application filed for police help.
(2.) The petitioner No. 2 has stated, inter alia, that after the death of Hiralal Shaw, who was his father, he became the tenant in respect of the entire suit premises. When Hiralal Shaw died the petitioner was a minor who did not authorise anyone to deal with the suit property. The petitioner No. 1 has claimed that his predecessor-in-interest took one room on tenancy from Hiralal Shaw ever since 1937. The tenancy continued even after the death of Hiralal Shaw in the year 1964 till date. The predecessors-in interest of the transferee/decree holders obtained a collusive decree against the Pannalal Shaw who was merely a collecting agent. Therefore, in the above situation they shall not be bound by such decree allegedly obtained against Pannalal Shaw. During the pendency of the application the petitioner No. 2 filed a petition under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for amendment of his application filed under Order 21 Rule 101 C.P.C. In the said application it has been, Inter alia, claimed that the ejectment decree between Smt. Gita Ghosh and Pannalal Shaw, all proceedings relating thereto are collusive and not binding upon the petitioners as Pannalal was never a tenant in the suit premises, who was merely a collecting agent on behalf of the owner Smt. Gita Ghosh. The said application for amendment was resisted by the transferee/decree holders. The learned Trial Court accepting the contention of the transferee/ decree holders was, however, inclined to reject the said amendment petition.
(3.) Mr. Das, the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners has submitted that this application for amendment is only by way of amplification of the facts already stated in the application filed under Order 21 Rule 101 C. P. C It has been stated that since in the petition under Order 21 Rule 101 C.P.C. it has been claimed by these petitioners that the previous decree against the original dr. Pannalal Shaw is not valid and binding upon them, therefore, they filed this amendment only to amplify as to how the said decree does not bind them.;