K. L. MANJUNATH, J.

( 1 ) THIS is a revision petition filed by the decree-holder who had obtained an order of eviction against the respondent in HRC No. 12 of 1989 on the file of Munsiff at Mangalore. An eviction was ordered to evict the respondent herein in the above House Rent Case proceedings by the Trial court on 25-3-1989. Petitioner lodged an execution petition to take possession of the property in question in Exc. No. 695 of 1989. The Executing court issued an order of delivery warrant directing the Court Bailiff to put the decree-holder in possession of the property in question by evicting the respondent-judgment debtor. At the request of the decreeholder the Court also ordered for the police help to execute the decree. Accordingly, the Court Bailiff put the decree-holder in possession of the property and the decree-holder also accepted delivery of possession and delivery receipt was also executed by the decree-holder on 6-3-1990. On the same day he has also executed an inventory for having taken possession of the moveable properties of the judgment-debtor therein. In addition to that, he has also executed an indemnity bond in favour of the court for having obtained possession of the moveables of the judgmentdebtor. Thus, it is clear that the Court Bailiff has given an effective delivery by putting the decree-holder in actual possession of the premises in question and thereby the decree has been executed to the full satisfaction of the decree-holder in view of the delivery receipt executed by the decree-holder.

( 2 ) ON 4-4-1990 Counsel for the decree-holder filed a memo to the Executing Court, which reads aa under:"the respondent-JD in the above execution case was evicted by the Court Amin and the petition premises were locked and possession given to the petitioner. But, that same night the respondent with her men forcibly broke open the lock and re-entered possession of the petition premises. She has also filed R. R. P. No. 70 of 1990 before District Judge of Dakshina Kannada, Mangalore". The Executing Court, by recording the memo filed by the decree-holder has closed the execution petition and the order sheet dated 5-4-1990 reads as under:"sri JJMP files Memo stating that judgment-debtor again got possession of petition premises by broke open the lock and now judgment-debtor filed CRP. Hence execution petition may be closed. In view of the memo execution petition is closed".

( 3 ) LOOKING into the order sheet maintained by the Executing Court, one can say that delivery of possession was accepted by the decreeholder and even according to the decree-holder, judgment-debtor by breaking open the lock has trespassed upon the property in question and has been squatting there as a trespasser.

( 4 ) ON 5-2-1996, present petitioner filed a second execution petition in exc. No. 308 of 1996 on the file of the Munsiff at Mangalore to execute the very same decree passed in HRC No. 12 of 1989 which was executed earlier in Exc. No. 695 of 1989. Judgment-debtor who entered appearance in the second execution petition raised an objection to the effect that second execution petition was not maintainable and therefore he sought for dismissal of the execution petition. Munsiff after hearing the parties, by order dated 24-2-1997 came to the conclusion that second execution petition was not maintainable, that the decree-holder has to file a separate suit for possession and accordingly execution petition was closed. Against the said order, present revision petition is filed by the decree-holder.

( 5 ) IT is contended before me by the Counsel for the petitioner that petitioner can maintain a second execution petition in view of the decision rendered by the High Court of Assam in Ghanashyam Das Mour agarwalla v Fatik Chandra Das. Relying upon the said decision, it is contended by the Counsel for the petitioner that dismissal of execution petition by the Munsiff is incorrect and therefore requested this Court to set aside the order. Per contra

Click Here to Read the rest of this document