MATIUR RAHMAN Vs. MUSTT ACHIA KHATOON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision has arisen out of the order dated 29.8.2002, passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) No.2, Guwahati, in Title Execution No.2/2001 arising out of TS No.22 of 1984, whereby the petitioner's application made under Order 21 Rule 99 and 101 read with section 151 CPC was rejected.

(2.) In a nutshell, material facts and various stages, which have led to rise to this revision, maybe narrated as follows: For execution of the decree granted in TS No.22 of 1984, Title Execution No.2 of 2001 aforementioned was commenced, the opposite party Nos 1 to 8 being the decree holders and opposite party No.9 being the judgment debtor. The petitioner, who was not a party to the suit or to the execution proceeding, made an application in the execution proceeding under Order 21 Rule 99 and 101 read with section 151 of the CPC, his case being that he had been in occupation and use of a portion of the suit property since 1972 by constructing his dwelling house thereon, which he had let out to tenants, but he was never made a party to the suit and though he was a stranger to the suit, he was now, being sought to be evicted from the said portion of the suit land. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned executing Court passed the impugned order rejecting the petitioner's prayer for allowing him to resist the execution of the decree. Aggrieved by this order, the revision petitioner has approached this Court.

(3.) I have perused the materials on record including the impugned order. I have heard Mr. SP Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. PK Khataniar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party.