NARAYANAN Vs. PADMANABHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts necessary for the disposal of this civil revision petition are as follows: When the decree -holder applied for delivery of possession of the decree schedule properties, the present revision petitioner, who is a stranger to the suit filed an obstruction petition and ultimately that obstruction petition was dismissed by the High Court on the ground that, being a stranger to the suit he had no right to approach the court except under Order XXI, rule 100, Code of Civil Procedure, that is to say, on the ground that he could file the obstruction petition only after dispossession by the amin. The High Court's decision is reported in, 1955 K.L.T. 413. Thereafter certain proceedings intervened, and ultimately the decree -holder himself made an application to the lower court in pursuance of which notice was issued to the revision petitioner to show cause why his obstruction should not be removed and the property delivered over to the decree -holder. At that stage and in answer to the notice to him the revision petitioner again came forward with a petition saying that he was in possession of the property independently of the judgment -debtors and the property should not therefore be delivered over to the plaintiff. Without inquiring into this petition and holding that it was bound by the decision in, 1955 K.L.T. 413 the lower court dismissed the obstruction petition. In the order dismissing the obstruction petition it observed:

(2.) THE court shall fix a day for investigating the matter and shall summon the party against whom the application is made to appear and answer the same.