RULES RAMAKRISHNAN Vs. MOTHER SUPERIOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE decree -holder in O.S.84/1972 of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Sulthan Bathery has come up by challenging the common order passed by the execution court in E.A. 10/2011 and E.A. 11/2011 in E.P. 7/2006 in O.S. 84/1972.

(2.) O .S. 84/1972 is a suit for recovery of possession. Initially, the court below dismissed the suit. The decree was reversed by this Court in A.S. 654/1993 vide judgment dated 24.05.2005. E.P. 7/2006 was filed in the matter on 23.12.2005. As the E.P. was filed within two years, notice under Rule 22 of Order XXI C.P.C. was dispensed with, and it seems that the court below had ordered delivery on 03.01.2006. When delivery was attempted, the same was obstructed by the respondent herein. Consequently, the petitioner as decree -holder filed Ext. P5 E.A. 89/2010 before the court below in the E.P. for the removal of the obstruction under Order XXI Rule 97 C.P.C. It seems that all the judgment -debtors and the legal representatives of some of the deceased judgment -debtors were arrayed as respondents in the said E.A. At that juncture, the respondent has pointed out before the court below that the legal representatives of most of the judgment -debtors, who had died, were not brought on record and, therefore, the E.P. is not maintainable. On such submission, the court below has passed order dated 16.11.2010 as follows: -

(3.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner/decree -holder and the learned counsel for the respondent.