SRI MUNISHAMANNA AND SRI RANGANNA Vs. SMT. DHANALAKSHMI AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE revision petitions are directed against the order passed by the X Addl. Small Causes Judge, Bangalore in Execution Nos. 1551/2011, 1552/2011 & 1553/2011 dismissing the application filed under Order 21 Rule 97 & 99 R/w Section 151 CPC by the revision petitioners as objectors as not maintainable. I have heard the arguments of Sri K. Chandranath Ariga, learned Advocate appearing for revision petitioners and Sri Sangamesh R.B., learned Advocate appearing for respondents -1 to 3 and perused the order under challenge as also records secured from the trial Court. Parties are referred to by their rank in the Executing Court.

(2.) THE Executing Court has dismissed these applications on the ground that report submitted by the Court Ameen would indicate that judgment debtors were in possession of the schedule premises at the time of executing the decree and contention of the objectors that they were in possession of the property and subsequently dispossessed by the Court Ameen forcibly prima facie holds no water amongst other reasons assigned by it. It is this order which is under challenge in these revision petitions.

(3.) PER contra, Sri Sangamesh, learned Advocate appearing for the decree holders would support the order of the Executing Court and contends as under: