K.E. SHAJAHAN Vs. M.N. SHAMMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Annexure-A5 order in E.A.No. 83 of 2016 in E.P.No. 18 of 2011 dtd. 24/8/2021 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Peermade is under challenge in this Civil Revision Petition filed under Sec. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. When this Revision Petition was moved, the further proceedings in E.P.No. 18 of 2011 was deferred and notice was issued to the decree holder/respondent.

(2.) Heard both sides.

(3.) It is submitted by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that the revision petitioner, who is none other than the judgment debtor No. 1 in the above E.P, had filed a petition under Ss. 47 and 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure claiming that the shop room proposed to be evicted in execution of decree in O.S.No. 158 of 2007 is one belonged to him. The specific case put up by the revision petitioner before the execution court is that the judgment debtor No. 1 purchased the shop room and the property as per sale deed No. 133/2000 of Peermade S.R.O. The decree holder/respondent filed objection disputing the claim. It was contended before the executing court that the plaint schedule room is the room situated on the road level in plots Nos. 2 and 3 of Exhibit C2 plan in OS.231/68 and is bearing door No. PP II/487 E during the year 1988-93. The father of the decree holder named Nainar Khan rented out the said room to one Mr. K.K.Ibrahim, who is the father of defendant Nos. 4 to 12 by wrongly describing it as door No. 501 B. After the death of Nainar Khan, the above said Ibrahim did not pay any rent to the legal heirs of Nainar Khan. Matter being so, defendant No. 4 in connivance with first defendant, made a document and raised illegal claims over the room and inducted defendant No. 13 in the said room. The decree holder is the joint owner of the plaint schedule room along with C.R.P.No. 323 of 2021 4 defendants Nos. 2 and 3. The other defendants are in the illegal occupation of the schedule room. It is true that the defendants did not contest the case. However, the decree shows that the decree holder is entitled to recover possession of the property from defendant No. 4 to 13 and men under them. The further contention raised by the decree holder before the court below is that the petitioner (judgment debtor No. 1) got possession over the plaint schedule shop room in violation of interim injunction ordered in O.S. No. 385 of 1997.