SHAIK SHARIFUDDIN Vs. SYED KHADER VALLI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the tenant of the respondents in respect of non-residential premises, situated at Kadapa. He filed O.S.No.673 of 1999 in the Court of the III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kadapa against the respondents for the relief of perpetual injunction. According to him, he paid a sum of Rs.50,000/- to the respondents as advance and that the respondents were trying to evict him forcibly, without even offering to refund the said amount. Ultimately, the trial Court decreed the suit through its Judgment dated 20-4-2000. The purport of the decree is that in case the respondents deposit a sum of Rs.50,000- into the Court, the petitioner shall be liable to vacate the premises. The respondents deposited the amount of Rs.50,000- as directed by the trial Court. The petitioner is said to have withdrawn that amount. The respondents filed an E.P. 167 of 2002 to enforce their rights under the decree, in the Court of the'Senior Civil Judge, Kadapa. The petitioner filed E.A.No.209 of 2002 in the E.P. for rejection of the E.P., on the ground that it is barred by Section 47 C.P.C. The executing Court dismissed the E.A., through its order dated 30-6-2003. Hence, this revision.

(2.) Sri B. Narasimha Sharma, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the E.P., was not maintainable, since the decree in O.S.No.673 of 1999 was obtained by the petitioner and the respondents figured as Judgment-Debtors therein. Referring to Rule 10 of Order 21 C.P.C. and the definition of the decree, the learned counsel submits that it was not at all competent for the respondents herein to file the E.P. According to him, no right as such has accrued in favour of the respondents and the purport of the decree is only to grant a perpetual injunction subject to certain conditions.

(3.) Sri A. Srinath, the learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the decree in the suit is very clear in its terms and it creates obligation on the part of both the parties. He contends that while the obligation of the respondents was to deposit Rs.50,000/-, the corresponding obligation of the petitioner was to vacate the premises as and when such amount is deposited.