DECCAN ENTERPRISES Vs. PREMRAJU R PREM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AN interesting question of law that whether a person claiming through an obstructor can maintain an application under Order-21 rule-97 C. P. C. after rejection of the application of the obstructor by the executing Court has been involved in this revision. This case is a classic example to show how the process of Court can be abused by the parties.

(2.) REVISION petitioner is a Decree-Holder. Revision petitioner here in filed an eviction case against one Rajoo in H. R. C. 10010/91 on the file of the Court of Small Causes, Bangalore. Based on a compromise petition, an order of eviction was passed in the aforesaid eviction petition.

(3.) THE Petitioner herein filed an execution to execute the order passed in H. R. C. 10010/91 in Exc. No. 10073/94. One Mirza Mohd. Yousuf Baig filed a suit on the file of City Civil Judge, Bangalore in o. S. No. 5687/92 contending that he is running the business under the name and style of 'cottage Arts' in premises No. 52, M. G. Road, bangalore and that he has perfected his title to the property by way of adverse possession. According to him the petitioner herein has no title to the property and that any order obtained by the petitioner is not binding on him and that the petitioner herein should be restrained from dispossessing him by means of perpetual injunction.