(1.) HEARD the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties.
(2.) THE brief facts which led to this appeal are as follows : the appellant K. M. Govinda Raju filed a suit against the respondent No. 1 in O. S. No. 6814/95 on the file of the City Civil Court, Bangalore for permanent injunction restraining the respondents from forcibly evicting him from the schedule property on the allegation that he is the tenant under the R-1 in the suit schedule property running a motor-car repair Garage in the name and style of M/s Ganesh Auto Garage. In the suit after contest temporary injunction was granted holding that the appellant plaintiff is in lawful possession as a tenant and his lawful possession is liable to be protected, the said injunction order was confirmed by the High Court in MFA 2994/95 dismissing the appeal, however modifying the order to the effect that he shall be in possession till he is dispossessed by due process of law.
(3.) DURING the pendency of the suit, the respondent filed eviction petition against one Mari Muthu in HRC. Case No. 1723/95 and obtained a consent eviction order against him in respect of the same property which was the subject matter of the suit schedule property in O. S. 6814/95 without implead-ing this appellant as a party in the proceedings. As the injunction order was in force the Civil Judge court had issued direction to the Commissioner of Police to protect the plaintiff's possession. The landlord/1st respondent subsequently filed Ex. Case No. 1475/96 for execution of the eviction order passed in HRC. Case No. 1723/95 on the file of the Small Causes Judge, Bangalore, against the said Mari Muthu. However, it is an undisputed fact that the appellant was dispossessed from the property on 10-6-1996 with the help of the police while executing the said decree passed by the HRC Court only against Mari Muthu. Therefore, this appellant filed the application before the Executing Court under Or. 21 R. 94 and 99 r/w S. 151 CPC for re-delivery of possession.