- (1.) The present petition has been filed for the following reliefs as formulated by the petitioners -- "(i) To be pleased to direct the respondents not to dispossessed/disturb the rightful possession over the suit land/Hat of the petitioners during pendency of Title Suit No. 49 of 2009 filed by the petitioners for declaration that the plaintifffs/petitioners have required perfect indefensible title over the suit land, pending in the Court of learned Sub Judge Ist, Munger. (ii) To be pleased to quash and set aside the order dated 13.11.2019 (Annexure-8) passed in Misc. Case No. 42 of 2019 filed by the petitioners with a prayer that the right, title and interest of the petitioners should be enquired by the Court and the respondents should be restrained from disturbing the peaceful possession of the petitioners over the Hat land from their shop. (iii) To be pleased to stay the operation of the order dated 13.11.2019 (Annexure-8) passed in Misc. Case No. 42 of 2019 pending in the Court of learned Sub Judge IIIrd, Munger during pendency of this case. (iv) And/or pass such order or orders as your Lordships may deem fit and proper for the ends of justice."
(2.) Learned Senior Counsel Dr. Umashankar Prasad appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that a collusive decree has been obtained in Title Suit No. 20 of 1997 relating to the subject land on which the petitioners and their ancestors have been running their shops for the past century and now being threatened with dispossession. It is submitted that the petitioners have also filed Title Suit No. 49 of 2009, in which their injunction petition is pending. Accordingly, an application was filed before the learned Court below in terms of Order 21 Rules 97 and 99 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) for protection against dispossession.
(3.) At the very outset this Court takes note that Order 21 Rule 99 CPC permits an application by a person other than judgment debtor or purchaser of the property in execution of a decree, to make an application to the Court where he is dispossessed. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the petitioners are not being dispossessed rather they apprehend that they may be dispossessed.;