MADHAV Vs. THE CHAIRMAN AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This group of Civil Revision Applications arises from common order passed by District Judge-1, Osmanabad, on 16.1.2013 (hereinafter referred as impugned order), in group of Misc. Civil Appeals having Nos.50/2012 to 60/2012. The common order was passed in Misc. Civil Appeal No.51/2012 and the copies of the order were kept in other Misc. Civil Appeals. Counsel for both sides have submitted that, in all these appeals, the parties are common except for respondent No.9, the obstructionist in the execution proceedings. Both the counsel argued by referring to the Petition in Civil Revision Application No.49/2013 and agreed that, rest of the Revision Applications have similar facts and points of law involved. I will refer to the petition and documents from Civil Revision Application No.49/2013.

(2.) In a sentence, what has happened in these matters is that, in the course of execution filed by the decree holder to recover possession from the judgment debtor, various obstructionists filed applications under Order XXI Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as C.P.C. for short) and decree holder compromised with the obstructionists and executed sale deeds in favour of the obstructionist, who were lessees of the judgment debtor. Application was filed to executing Court to permit execution of sale deeds and same was granted. Judgment debtor has carried appeals to District Court claiming that the Court could not have endorsed permission to let decree holder and the obstructionists enter into such sale deeds in view of the compromise done in the Lok Adakat. The applicant, one of the decree holder objected to the maintainability of the appeals and filed applications. Applications (Exh.14 in M.C.A. No.51/2012) were rejected by common order dated 16.1.2013 and hence the present revisions.

(3.) A few facts need to be referred.