KODIDASU VENKATARAMANA MURTHY Vs. BETHAPU GANGARAJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This C.M.S.A. presents one more illustration, as to what amount of hardship, the plaintiff, in a suit can be made to undergo, after the suit is decreed. The facts of the case speak for themselves.

(2.) The appellants filed O.S.No. 105 of 1985, in the Court of the Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Parvathipuram, for the relief of eviction of the second respondent, and recovery of mesne profits. It was pleaded that the second respondent is their tenant, and that he continued in possession of the property, even after termination of the lease. The second respondent contested the suit, and denied the existence of relationship of lessor and lessee. The suit was partly decreed by the trial Court, through judgment, dated 20-12-1989. The relief of recovery of possession was granted, but the prayer for mesne profits was rejected. The first respondent filed A.S.No. 3 of 1990 in the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Parvathipuram, aggrieved by the decree, in O.S.No. 105 of 1985. The appellants, in turn, filed cross-objections, in so far as, the trial Court denied the relief of mesne profits. Through its judgment, dated 15-3-1994, the lower appellate Court dismissed the appeal, and allowed the cross-objections. The same became final.

(3.) The appellants filed E.P. 3 of 1993, under Order XXI, Rule 35 C.P.C. for delivery of possession to them. The Executing Court issued a warrant of delivery of possession. On the ground that the first respondent herein obstructed, the Amin of the Court did not deliver possession and reported the matter to the Court. That necessitated filing of E.A.No. 59 of 1985, by the appellants, under Order XXI, Rule 97 C.P.C. for removal of the obstruction, against the respondents. The first respondent is the alleged obstructor. The second respondent is judgment-debtor and the third respondent is an advocate, who is said to have instigated the the respondent to cause obstruction. The executing Court ordered E.A. 59 of 1995, by directing detention of the first respondent in civil prison. The E.A. was dismissed against the third respondent.