E S SULOCHANA Vs. P YOGAMBA LAKSHMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Feeling aggrieved by order dated 28-6-2011 in E.A.No.183/2006 in O.E.P.No.26/2004 in O.S.No.1/1998 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Puttur, the third party to the suit and the E.P. filed this Civil Revision Petition.

(2.) The facts, which are relevant for disposal of this case, are summarized as under:

(3.) Respondent No.1 filed E.A.No.7/2005 under Order XXI Rule 97 of the Code for removal of obstruction caused by the third parties. Respondent No.1 however filed a Memo to permit her to withdraw the said E.A. with liberty to file "petitions as per law". E.A.No.7/2005 was called on Bench on 29-6-2006. As respondent No.1 remained absent and unrepresented, the said application was dismissed. On the same day on which the E.A. was dismissed, respondent No.1 filed another application, registered as E.A.No.183/2006, purportedly under Section 151 of the Code, for a direction to the Bailiff to remove the obstruction, if necessary with Police aid and to execute the delivery warrant. The petitioner and respondent No.3 were shown as objector Nos.1 and 2 to the said application. The petitioner filed a counter-affidavit in the said application wherein she has stated that neither respondent No.2/judgment-debtor nor his men have any semblance of right, title or possession over the E.P. schedule property; that respondent No.2 never contested the suit and the E.P. and that there is active collusion between respondent No.1/decree-holder and respondent No.2/judgment-debtor and that therefore the decree is wholly unenforceable. The petitioner has taken strong objection to the maintainability of the subsequent application i.e., E.A.No.183/2006, as the earlier application filed by respondent No.1 under Order XXI Rule 97 of the Code was dismissed for default. By the order which is questioned in this Civil Revision Petition, the lower Court has allowed the application of respondent No.1, with costs and granted the Police aid.