BHIM NAIK Vs. CHAKRADHAR MAITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I am afraid that this rule must be discharged. The applicant purchased in execution of a rent decree what appears to be a non-transferable Occupancy holding. When he was put in possession by the Court, it was found that certain persons were on the land who claimed to be in possession as purchasers from the original tenant. The Court peon gave symbolical possession only; but these persons were, in fact, on the land applied under Order 21, Rule 100. Civil P.C., The Munsiff made an order in their favour restoring them to possession under Rule 101. Now, the present application is brought in revision against that order, notwithstanding that the auction-purchaser has a remedy by suit under Order 21, Rule 103, Civil P.C., and, as a rule, this Court does not interfere in revision in such cases because there is another and better remedy open to the parties. I may say that I am by no means satisfied that the case of Panchratan V/s. Ram Sahai [1918] 3 Pat. L.J. 579, upon which the learned advocate for the petitioners relies was correctly decided. I see nothing in Rule 100 about the representatives of the judgment-debtor and I am at a loss to see any sufficient justification for importing decisions under Section 47 into rules which contain nothing of the language of 47 as regards representatives of the judgment-debtor. On the contrary, it seems to me that Rule 101 provides explictly and expressly for this very matter the question being whether the applicant is in possession on his own account or on account of some person other than the judgment-debtor. In such cases, the law says that a person cannot get execution against another person who is not the judgment-debtor in the suit. No doubt, the matter can be put right by suit; but ordinarily one cannot get possession of a property without bringing a suit against all the persons in possession. That being so, I am not at all satisfied that the Munsiff is wrong; but, in any case, I am quite satisfied that it is unnecessary to interfere in revision in this case.

(2.) THE rule must be discharged with costs, hearing-fee two gold mohurs.