A person claiming through an earlier obstructor cannot maintain a subsequent application under Order-21 Rule-97 of C. P. C. if the earlier application has been adjudicated and rejected, as it amounts to res judicata.

( 1 ) AN interesting question of law that whether a person claiming through an obstructor can maintain an application under Order-21 rule-97 C. P. C. after rejection of the application of the obstructor by the executing Court has been involved in this revision. This case is a classic example to show how the process of Court can be abused by the parties.

( 2 ) REVISION petitioner is a Decree-Holder. Revision petitioner here in filed an eviction case against one Rajoo in H. R. C. 10010/91 on the file of the Court of Small Causes, Bangalore. Based on a compromise petition, an order of eviction was passed in the aforesaid eviction petition.

( 3 ) THE Petitioner herein filed an execution to execute the order passed in H. R. C. 10010/91 in Exc. No. 10073/94. One Mirza Mohd. Yousuf Baig filed a suit on the file of City Civil Judge, Bangalore in o. S. No. 5687/92 contending that he is running the business under the name and style of 'cottage Arts' in premises No. 52, M. G. Road, bangalore and that he has perfected his title to the property by way of adverse possession. According to him the petitioner herein has no title to the property and that any order obtained by the petitioner is not binding on him and that the petitioner herein should be restrained from dispossessing him by means of perpetual injunction.

( 4 ) ON 15. 7. 1994 Mirza Mohd, Yousuf Baig also filed an application in Exc. 10073/94 under Order-21 Rules-97 to 100 and 103 of C. P. C. raising obstructions to execute the decree by the petitioner contending that he is in possession of the shops in question in his own right. The application filed by the said Mirza Mohd. Yousuf Baig came to be rejected by the executing Court. Aggrieved by the said order, he filed a Regular First Appeal before the High Court in R. RA. 693/94. The R. F. A. was rejected by this Court on 12. 9. 1995. However, the court while dismissing the appeal observed that D. Hr. M/s Deccan enterprises shall not execute the decree as long as the order of injunction granted in O. S. No. 4256/94 is in force.

( 5 ) O. S. NO. 4256/94 was also filed by Mirza Mohd. Yousuf Baig for a judgment and decree to declare that the order passed in h. R. C. No. 10010/91 on the file of the Small Causes Court, Bangalore dated 7. 7. 1994 as collusive and fraudulent and that the same was not binding on him. In para-13 of the plaint it is stated by the said mirza Mohd. Yousuf Baig that he is running 'cottage Arts' and a sister concern in the same premises under the name and style of m/s. Kashmir Home Industries. The schedule given to the said plaint is in respect of the property measuring east to west 11-50 metres and north to south 21-10 metres. The order of temporary injunction granted in favour of Mirza Mohd. Yousuf Baig came to be vacated by the City Civil Judge, Bangalore by his order dated 6. 12. 1995. Therefore, by virtue of vacating the interim order, D. Hr. M/s Deccan enterprises was entitled to execute the order passed in H. R. C. 10010/ 91. Being aggrieved by the order of vacating the injunction, Mirza mohd. Yousuf Baig filed an appeal before this Court in M. F. A. 3696/ 95; which also came to be dismissed on 12. 2. 1996. Against the order of dismissal of M. F. A. , the matter was taken up before the supreme Court in S. L. P. No. 4692/96 and the Supreme Court confirmed the orders of this Court on 18. 3. 1996.

( 6 ) MIRZA Mohd. Yousuf Baig also filed a revision petition before this Court in H. R. R. P. 1606/95 challenging the order of eviction passed against Rajoo in H. R. C. 10010/91. The Court dismissed H. R. R P. 1606/ 95 on 22. 12. 1995 on the ground that Mirza Mohd. Yousuf Baig was not a party to the H. R. C. Petition. Therefore the Court held that the revision petition filed by him was not maintainable. While dismissing the revision petition, the Court gave liberty to approach the Court to protect his rights, if any, in a manner legally permissible.

( 7 ) MIRZA Mohd. Yousuf Baig who lost his R. F. A. 69