R.R.Prasad,J. - (1.) All these four applications were heard together as the issue involved in these cases are the same and, therefore, these cases are being disposed of by this common order.
(2.) Four eviction suits bearing Eviction Suit Nos. 14/1986, 03/1988, 04/1988 and 05/1988, were filed on behalf of the plaintiff petitioners against the defendants, who were the tenants. The suits were decreed. Against that, title appeals were preferred, which also got dismissed. Thereupon, second appeals bearing S.A. Nos. 89 of 2005, 140 of 2005, 145 of 2005 and 149 of 2005, were preferred before this Court, which appeals were also dismissed. Being aggrieved with those orders, the defendants tenants preferred S.L.Ps. Those S.L.Ps were also dismissed. However, the tenant defendant, who had preferred the S. L.Ps, were granted six months time to vacate the premises in question subject to filing of usual undertaking in the Court within four weeks from that date. When the defendant tenant did not vacate the suit premises the plaintiff decree holder filed execution cases. In those execution cases applications under Order 21 Rules 97, 99, 101 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure , were filed on behalf of the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh. Those applications were rejected on 09/07/2007. Against that order, miscellaneous appeals were preferred before the District Judge, Hazaribagh, which got dismissed as not maintainable vide order dated 27/10/2010. After more than five years applications under Order 21 Rules 97, 99, 101 read with Section 151 C.P.C, were filed on behalf of the Commissioner, Hazaribagh Nagar Parishad on 08/06/2012, which was dismissed after holding that no case is made out even to register a miscellaneous case.
(3.) According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, in spite of such decision holding therein that the applications are not fit to be registered as miscellaneous case, miscellaneous appeals were filed before the District Judge, Hazaribagh, which have been admitted for hearing though at the time of admission objection was raised over the maintainability of the miscellaneous appeals by taking a plea that when the miscellaneous case was dismissed at the thresh hold without even registering it as miscellaneous case by the executing court, appeals cannot be maintained as appeal can be maintained only when the order is passed under Order 21 Rules 98 and 100 of the Code. Ignoring this objection taken by the decree holders, the appeals have been admitted for hearing. Being aggrieved with that order, these applications have been filed.;