MARY LAZAR Vs. KRISHNA GOPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is filed by the legal representatives of the decree-holder in h. r. c. No. 2022 of 1994 on the file of the learned small causes judge, bangalore. This revision petition is filed under Section 1. 15 of the cpc assailing the Order dated 18-3-2002 in execution case No. 273 of 1999 on the file of the learned additional small causes judge, bangalore dismissing the execution petition filed by the petitioners.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

(3.) WHEN this revision petition had come up for admission on 1-7-2002, on finding prima facie, that the impugned Order cannot be sustained, I directed issue of emergent notice to the respondent so as to give an opportunity to the respondent and to dispose off the matter. Thereafter, the respondent has been served and the respondent is represented by Sri Sangvi, the learned counsel who fully supported the impugned Order and contended that even though the original landlady had secured an Order of eviction in the h. r. c. case, that Order was granted to her on a compromise between her and the respondent, and that too, in view of her requiring the petition schedule premises for her personal occupation. It is contended that since the decree was granted personally to the original landlady, the l. rs cannot execute the said order, which is personal to her. The learned counsel also contended that subsequently the respondent had received notice from a third party to the effect that the original landlady has willed away the suit property to that person and claiming rents from the respondent and the respondent has allegedly paid the rents to that person who issued her the notice. On all these grounds, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the trial court was justified in dismissing the execution petition.