ANOOP V.MOHTA, J. - (1.)ALL these appeals have been filed by the respective original plaintiff-appellants herein, who were not party to the judgment and decree between the decree holder and judgment debtor, and thereby, challenged the common judgment and order dated 30th January, 1991, which was passed in Regular Civil Appeals No.38 of 1991, 29 of 1991, 40 of 1991 and 41 of 1991 by the District Judge, Nagpur, which arose out of Regular Civil Suits No.815 of 1986 to 818 of 1986, whereby, the courts below dismissed the suits after deciding preliminary issue that the suits were not tenable for the protection and possession and a declaration of tenancy rights in view of section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code (for short "C.P.C."), as Regular Darkhast (Executions) were pending at the relevant time between the decree holder and judgment debtor. Now these execution proceedings are not pending, as dismissed in default and remained unrestored.
(2.)THE following chart gives a bird's eye-view of the litigation between the parties.
DETAILS OF PROCEEDINGS SecondFirstSuitRegular Appeal Nos.Appeal Nos.Nos.Darkhast/ Executions 107/199140/1991RCS No.818/1986251/1986 Plaintiffs (Pramod Gandhi) 108/199138/1991RCS No.815/1986248/1986 (Forest India Intnl) 109/199141/1991RCS No.816/1986250/1986 (Umesh Electricals) 110/199140/1991RCS No.817/1986246/986 (Pramod Gandhi) (Present Position Decided byDecided onDecided onDismissed in this judgment30-1-19911-10-1990default

The appellants had filed separate suits as referred above, for a declaration and an injunction that they cannot be dispossessed by the original defendant-respondents herein, through the warrant of possession in Regular Darkhast Nos.251 of 1986, 248 of 1986, 250 of 1986 and 246 of 1986, as they are in lawful possession of the suit premises i.e. respective shops in Vijay Anand Co-operative Housing Society Limited (for short "Housing Society") and as they were never party to the said respective execution proceedings. On 30th April, 1986, the respective appellants had filed the Regular civil suits, as referred above, with additional prayer of an injunction, restraining the respondents No.2 of second appeals from dispossessing the appellants. The learned trial Judge initially granted ex parte order of status quo. On 15th July, 1986, the trial Judge vacated the ex-parte order. On 31st July, 1986. The appellants preferred appeal before the District Judge. Nagpur and by order dated 1st August, 1986 the lower Appellate Court had granted status quo again which was later on confirmed. The said order of confirmation was challenged in civil revision application by the respondent No.2. On 16th October, 1987, the High Court permitted to withdraw the said civil revision application and directed the trial Court to frame the issue on question of jurisdiction and decide the same within a month. On 29th July, 1989 this Court again ordered to maintain status quo, but directed the trial Court to decide the preliminary objection raised, within three months. By judgment and order dated 1st October, 1990 the trial Court had dismissed all the suits filed by the respective appellants being not tenable On 4th October, 1990 appellants preferred respective Regular Civil Appeals before the Additional District Judge, Nagpur. On 15th November, 1990 no interim injunction and/or interim order, as prayed, was granted. On 10th December, 1990 Appeals against orders were preferred before the High Court and the same were disposed of with a direction to the lower Court to hear the Appeal by 31st January, 1991. All those appeals were finally heard and by order dated 30th January, 1991 those Appeals were dismissed.

(3.)THEREFORE, all these appeals have been filed on 26th February, 1991 and are admitted on grounds, which are treated as the questions of law, and are as under. There is no dispute about the same.
"1a) Interpretation of section 47(1) of C.P.C. was to determine whether valid tenant is a Representative of his landlord. 1b) Whether he is bound by a Decree/Award of his Lessor and Decree holder. 2) That the contractual rights of the appellants and his Lessor is covered by the provisions of sections 105 and 109 of Transfer of Property Act, are beyond the scope of section 47(1) of the Civil Procedure Code. 3) The appellants not being party to the proceedings before the Co-operative Court or the Execution Court, cannot be bound by the litigation and has a right to file a separate Suit. 4) That, the dispute before the Co-operative Court was not regarding the contractual right of the appellant. His contractual right cannot fall within the scope of section 91 of the Co-operative Societies Act. 5) Section 47(1) of Civil Procedure Code, are not at all applicable to the controversy and the Suits cannot be dismissed as not tenable and they should be tried on merits and in accordance with law. 6) The Appellants are in possession of the premises legally and they cannot be dispossessed except by due process of law."