HANUMAIAH Vs. NANJUNDAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) when this matter was heard last, I recorded the following in the order-sheet:-

(2.) in the meanwhile, a division bench of this court has ruled in CRP No. 4994/1989, disposed of on 29-6-1990 that if an application filed by a third party in execution proceedings resisting the claim for delivery of possession of immovable property, such an application would amount to obstruction within the meaning of Rule 97 of order 21 of CPC.

(3.) from the narration made above, the present petitioner in the civil petition for review of the order made by kulkami, j., As he then was, in CRP No. 85 of 1987, was that the obstruction of the obstructor which was treated as miscellaneous application No. 13 of 1979 on the file of the munsiff at gubbi. During the pendency of that petition, the decree holder died as noticed by me. The matter was reserved for orders on the application filed and attempt to bring the l.rs. On record was considered unnecessary in terms of Rule 6 of order 22 of CPC. But the order passed in miscellaneous petition finally makes it abundantly clear that arguments were heard subsequent to the date on which it was decided that there was no need to bring the l.rs. On record. But it is not implicit in the order that the evidence also was recorded. In other words, at that point of time, there was need for the l.rs. To come on record but they were not brought on record.