B K KRISHNA MURTHY Vs. G P RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri Gangadhar R. Gurumath, learned Counsel for the revisionists-applicants and Sri P. C. Ajjappa holding brief for Sri Kaleemulla Shariff, learned Counsel for the respondents.

(2.) THIS revision petition arises from the order of the execution Court namely Munsiff, Siruguppa, dismissing the revision petitioners objections under Order 21, Rule 58 of the CPC as not maintainable with the observations that in view of the order passed by his predecessor on 15-7-1992 on LA. 2 and LA. 3 which were for the impleadment of the claimants as parties to the petition rejected the application for impleadment. While passing the order on 15-7-1992, it had observed that the decree in suit No. 587 of 1989 having been passed, the question of filing objections does not arise until the decree passed in the suit is set aside. From the order dated 10-8-1993 which has been passed by the learned Munsiff, Siruguppa, rejecting the revision petitioners application under Order 21, Rule 58 it appears that he has passed this order holding application under Order 21, Rule 58 as not maintainable in view of order dated 15-7-1992 passed on I. A. 2 and LA. 3. It means by this order, the Munsiff has not given any decision on the claim made by application Order 21, Rule 58 but has only rejected the application as not maintainable. A preliminary objection regarding the maintainability has been raised on behalf of the respondent that the order may be said to be appealable, but no revision is maintainable under Section 115 in view of Order 21, Rule 58 (4) which says that order amounts to a decree and is subject to conditions of appeal. It has further been contended that once an order has been passed on 15-7-1992, that order has been binding and therefore there was no error of jurisdiction on the part of the authority in rejecting the application under Order 21, Rule 58.

(3.) THIS preliminary objection of the respondents' Counsel has been hotly contested by the learned Counsel for the applicants by urging that this order by itself is not an order deciding the claim or adjudicating the rights claimed by the present petitioners by virtue of application under Order 21, Rule 58. It is an order whereby the Court/authority has rejected the application as basically not maintainable and refused to exercise jurisdiction to decide the claim made under Order 21, Rule 58 on merits.