HANUMANTHRAYAPPA Vs. PUTTAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The captioned second appeal is filed by the third party applicant feeling aggrieved by the concurrent orders of the Courts below, wherein both Courts have rejected third party application filed by the appellant herein under Order 21 Rule 99 of CPC and under Order 21 Rule 26 read with Rule 29 of CPC.

(2.) Respondent No.1 - Decree Holder brought in a suit for specific performance of contract in O.S.No.15/1998 based on the sale agreement dtd. 24/1/1997. It appears that suit ended in compromise. Based on the said compromise decree, respondent No.1 - Decree Holder filed an execution petition in Ex.P.No.55/2008. The present appellant herein, asserting that since there is an agreement of sale much prior to the suit agreement, filed an obstruction application under Order 21 Rule 99 of CPC. The Executing Court having examined the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of application had out rightly proceeded to reject the application on the ground that since third party applicant is not asserting an independent title, but claiming through Judgment Debtor, his application is not maintainable.

(3.) Feeling aggrieved by the order of the Executing Court, the present appellant herein preferred an appeal before the Appellate Court. The Appellate court having examined the scope of provisions under Order 21 Rule 99 of CPC., placing reliance on the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of the N.S.S.NARAYANA SARMA AND OTHERS VS. M/S. GOLDSTONE EXPORTS (P) LIMITED AND OTHERS reported in AIR 2002 SC 251 was of the view that having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the present third party application would not warrant any detailed enquiry. Therefore, the Appellate Court was of the view that this is a fit case where an application is liable to be rejected summarily without relegating parties to lead evidence on the third party application. These concurrent orders are under challenge at the instance of the third party applicant.