CHALUGU BASIVI NAIDU Vs. CHALUGU BHEEMI NAIDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The unsuccessful petitioners-third parties in E.A. No. 254/98 in E.P. No. 72/97 in O.S. No. 30/85 dated 8-9-2000 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Chodavaram, are the Revision Petitioners.

(2.) The Revision Petitioners, as third party objectors filed the aforesaid application under Order 21 Rule 97 r/w. Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, hereinafter in short referred to as "Code", praying the Court to declare that they are not liable to be dispossessed from the schedule lands and for costs. The facts in nutshell are as follows:

(3.) The respondents had filed a counter stating that they filed O.S. No. 30/85 against the Judgment-debtors in the above E.P. for the relief of declaration and also seeking the relief of right to evict them from the plaint schedule properties and the consequential relief to put them in possession of the plaint schedule properties and also for damages and other reliefs. It was also stated that after filing the written statement, the defendants therein had remained ex parte and their counsel reported no instructions during the time of trial in the above suit and consequently the suit was decreed with costs and the defendants in the said suit -Judgment-debtors, had not preferred any appeal and thus the Judgment and the decree in the said suit became final. It was also stated that as Decreeholders they filed the E.P. referred to supra for obtaining delivery of possession of the plaint schedule properties and at the time of execution of the said warrant some of the Judgment-debtors caused obstruction to the delivery proceedings and when it was brought to the notice of the executing Court by the Court Amin, the Court was pleased to issue Hukum warrants against the judgment-debtors and since the obstruction was through the henchmen of the judgment-debtors, they filed an application before the executing Court for providing necessary police assistance to obtain delivery and at that stage the petitioners - third party objectors came with the present application at the instance of me judgment-debtors in the above E.P. only with a view to cause delay in delivery proceedings and to cause inconvenience and hardship to them. It was further stated that the petitioners were never in possession of the plaint schedule property at any point of time and in fact they never obstructed the delivery proceedings and even the Court Amin and his report had not disclosed the names of these petitioners as obstructors and these parties are in no way concerned with the plaint schedule properties and thus the petitioners have no right, title or possession whatsoever over the plaint schedule properties at any point of time. It was also stated that Order 21 Rule 97 of the Code is intended to be invoked by the Decreeholder only and it is not intended to be invoked by third parties and hence the petitioners have no locus standi to file an application under Order 21 Rule 97 of the Code and hence the said application itself is not maintainable.