RAJENDRAN GNANAOLIVU Vs. SUNDAR GNANAOLIVU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The decree holder in O.S.No.7414 of 1996 on the file of IXth Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai is the petitioner in the above revision filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) The petitioner filed the said suit against the first respondent herein initially on the file of Original Side of this Court. The suit was filed for declaration of title and recovery of possession concerning the Flat No. 1-D, Marble Arch, No.4 and 5, Bishop Wallace Avenue (East), Mylapore, Chennai 600004. The said suit was filed in the year 1991 and the same was numbered as C.S.No.653 of 1991 and it was transferred to the City Civil Court and renumbered as O.S.No.7414 of 1996 on the file of the Second Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. The first respondent herein contested the suit and the same was decreed after full trial on 2.8.1999. After the decree, the petitioner filed the execution petition in E.P.No.151 of 2000 on the file of IX th Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. Notice was ordered in the Execution Petition and finally the first respondent herein was set ex parte on 8.7.2000 and delivery of possession was ordered. When the bailiff went to the suit property, first respondent's people locked the doors and prevented the execution. Therefore, the petitioner filed two Execution Applications in the above Execution Petition for brake open the lock and police aid respectively. The second respondent at that point of time filed E.A.No.3919 of 2000 in the above Execution Petition under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking to record him as an Obstructor in the proceedings. The case of the second respondent is that he became a tenant in the suit property in January, 1999. He was inducted into the suit property by one Rukmani, has said to be a Power Tenant Agent of the first respondent. The second respondent has alleged that there is a rental agreement in his favour. The petitioner herein filed a counter opposing the said application. The said petition is also barred by the provisions of Order 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure as in accordance with Rule 102 of the said order a transferee pendente lite of the suit property from the judgment debtor is not entitled to be heard as an Obstructor. The Court below by the impugned order dated 31.1.2001, allowed E.A.No.3919 of 2000. Against the said order, the petitioner preferred the present revision.

(3.) Heard Mr. R. Srinivas for the petitioner and Mr. M.L. Ramesh for the second respondent.