(1.) These two original petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by the same petitioner against the same respondent. In O. P. No. 3368 of 1984, the Principal Munsiff, Cochin, is also impleaded as the 2nd respondent. But that is not necessary and has also no relevance in the light of the subsequent events and the nature of the final disposal of the case. The legality of the proceedings in execution of R.C.P. No. 148 of 1982 is in issue. The petitioner in the O. Ps. is the landlord of a building (No. VI/789 --New number Vl/807, New Road, Cochin-2.) He initiated proceedings for eviction under Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. The tenant in R.C.P. No. 148 of 1982 is the respondent. The Rent Control Court, Cochin, passed an order of eviction against the tenant dated 7-9-1983. The litigation had a chequered career. Only the minimum facts necessary for these proceedings are mentioned herein. Suffice it to say, that on 15-2-1984, the Principal Munsiff ordered delivery of the decree schedule building on 23-2-1984. By an order passed on 17-3-1984, the court ordered delivery on 28-3-1984. The Amin was deputed to give possession of the building. One M. Ibrahim, on behalf of one Ramunni (or Raman Unni?) caused obstruction. On 29-3-1984 the petitioner-decree-holder applied for warrant of delivery. This matter stood posted to 7-4-1984 and was adjourned from time to time for one reason or other. Finally, it stood posted to 15-6-1984. Dissatisfied with the same, the petitioner filed o. P. No. 3368 of 1984 in this Court, praying that the Principal Munsiff, Cochin (2nd respondent) be directed to issue a second warrant of delivery to deliver the decree schedule building in R. C. P. No. 148 of 1982 by removing all obstructions under Order XXI, Rule 35 C.P.C. and for other reliefs. Notice was ordered in the O. P. The entire records were called up, A petition was filed praying for the grant of interim relief, C.M.P. No. 10164/84. It was for the issue of a second warrant of delivery even before 12-4-1984, to deliver the decree schedule building. Notice was ordered. Final orders were passed in the said petition, by my learned brother Justice Sri V. Bhaskaran Nambiar during summer vacation, on 17-41984. It was represented before Court, then, that the Munsiff's Court had issued a fresh warrant for delivery of the property to the landlord-decree-holder (petitioner). So the petitioner was directed to take steps for delivery pursuant to the said order. The petitioner was also given liberty to execute any subsisting warrant issued by the Munsiff's Court after the filing of O. P. No. 3368 of 1984. The hearing of the E. P., adjourned to 15-6-1984, was advanced to 11-4-1984, and on that day a fresh warrant of delivery (mentioned earlier) was issued directing delivery of the building on 12-4-1984. It was because of this order, my learned brother Bhaskaran Nambiar J. passed the aforesaid order on 17-41984 in C.M.P. No. 10164 of 1984. On this second warrant, the Amin filed a report to the effect that M. Ibrahim and his employees obstructed delivery, stating that they are not liable to vacate the building. So, no delivery could be effected. The decree-holder filed E. A. No. 153 of 1984 (and E. A. No. 156 of 1984) under Order XXI, Rule 35 of C.P.C. and also prayed for removal of the obstruction with the assistance of the Police. The learned Principal Munsiff, Cochin, by an order dated 12-4-1984, dismissed the petition. He held that the petitioner is not entitled to have the obstruction removed with the assistance of Police as prayed for. This order, Ext. P-2, dated 12-4-1984 is challenged in the subsequent O. P. No. 3721 of 1984. The prayer is to quash Ext. P-2 order of the Principal Munsiff dated 12-4-1984 aforesaid and deliver the decree schedule building by removing the obstruction, if any, under Order XXI, Rule 35 C.P.C. by this Court or to direct the Munsiff's Court, Cochin to issue a warrant of delivery and deliver the building immediately by removing the obstruct ion under Order XXI, Rule 35 of the C.P.C., etc.
(2.) The entire records relating to R.C.P. No. 148 of 1982, inclusive of the records relating to execution proceedings were called for by this Court on 13-4-1984. On hearing the petition, it appeared that in the light of the facts disclosed in the case, it was necessary to call for the entire records of the subordinate court to scrutinise the legality of the proceedings in the case. It was so done. That this Court has ample power to do so, in exercise of its powers, vested under Section 115 of C.P.C. was not disputed at the bar. As stated by Mulla -- C.P.C. Vol. I, 1981 Edn., page 668: "The High Court may of its own motion call for any record under this section, if it appears desirable to do so (q). It is not necessary to the exercise of its powers under this section that it should be put into motion by the party aggrieved by the proceeding complained of. It has been so held by the High Courts of Calcutta, Allahabad and Madras (r)." See also Meenakshi v. Lakshmi, (1967 Ker LT 777 at p. 789 (para 37) : (AIR 1967 Ker 135 at p. 143 (para 37) ).
(3.) One V. K. Ramunni who obstructed when the Amin went to the spot to give delivery to the petitioner in the O. P. (the decree-holder in R. C. P. 148 of 1982) has filed C.M.P. No. 14810 of 1984 in O. P. No. 3721 of 1984 to implead him as an additional respondent. Admittedly, he is not a party in the R.C.P. proceedings. Even on his own showing, he is only an obstructor. He avers that he is a stranger to the decree. Such a person has no right to get himself impleaded. Nor can such claim be adjudicated at this stage and more particularly in these proceedings. A stranger, third party to the decree, who is not bound by the decree and who is dispossessed, has got a right to demand an enquiry only after he is dispossessed in execution, invoking Order 21, Rule 100 of the C.P.C. complaining of dispossession. Till then a stranger-obstructor has no locus standi to move the Court. The law in this regard is well-settled. (The decisions adverted to hereinafter will also substantiate the same). So, I decline to entertain C.M.P. 14810 of 1984 for impleading the petitioner therein as a respondent in O. P. No. 3721 of 1984. C.M.P. No. 14810 of 1984 is dismissed.