K. L. MANJUNATH, J.

( 1 ) THIS petition is filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by the rejection of his application filed under Order 41, Rule 5 of CPC in R. A. No. 56/02 on the file of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nanjangud, which appeal was filed against the rejection of his application filed under Order 21, Rules 97 to 99 and 101 of CPC in Execution 93/2000, on the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Nanjangud.

( 2 ) THE respondent No. 1 - Kempamma in this revision petition, filed a suit for declaration and for possession in O. S. No. 30-90 on the file of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Nanjuangud, against respondents 2 and 3 herein. The said suit was hotly contested and a decree was passed in favour of the 1st respondent against which, Respondents 2 and 3 filed an appeal before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nanjangud in R. A. No. 10/97. The said appeal also came to be dismissed on merits. After the confirmation of the Judgment and Decree passed in O. S. No. 31/90 in R. A. 10/97, respondents 2 and 3 filed a second appeal before this court in R. S. A. No. 829/2000. The second appeal filed by the Respondents 2 and 3 was also dismissed confirming the Judgment and Decree of the lower Courts. Thereafter, the Respondent No. 1 filed the execution petition to execute the decree obtained by her against the Respondents 2 and 3 in Execution No. 93/2000. The Judgment Debtors objected for delivery of delivery Warrant being issued by the executing Court. Thereafter, the present revision petitioner filed an application under Order 21, Rules 97 to 99 claiming to be a tenant of the decree holder, as if under an oral Agreement, he was inducted as a tenant initially on a monthly rent of Rs. 100/- and the same was enhanced to Rs. 150/- and that he has been tethering the cattle in the premises in question. He further contends that he was aware of the litigation pending between the parties and that the decree holder had promised him that his possession would not be disturbed. Based on the alleged oral promise of the decree holder, he requested the executing Court to adjudicate his claim, without producing any material along with the application.

( 3 ) THE said application was resisted by the decree-holder contending that, at no point of time the present revision petitioner was inducted as a tenant and that the applicant has been set up by the Judgment Debtors. The application filed by the petitioner herein was dismissed by the executing Court by its order dated 3rd April 2002. Against the dismissal of his application, the petitioner filed an appeal under S. 96 of CPC in R. A. No. 56/02 on the file of the Civil Judge (senior Division), Nanjangud. In the said appeal, the petitioner filed an application under Order 41, Rule 5 of CPC to stay the further proceedings in Execution No. 93/2000 pending disposal of the appeal. The Civil Judge (Senior Division) also rejected the application and refused to grant an interim order of stay.

( 4 ) BEING aggrieved by the said order, the present revision petition is filed. The petitioner has raised two grounds in this revision. According to him, (a) The executing Court has committed an error in not conducting a full-dressed trial before rejecting his application. (b) when the petitioner is claiming an independent right through the decree-holder, it was incumbent upon the executing Court to conduct a trial and to dispose of the application.

( 5 ) HE has also relied upon the Judgment of the Supreme Court reported in (N. S. S. Narayana Sarma and others v. M/s Goldstone Exports (P) Limited) 2002 0 (KAR) 1300. Relying upon this Judgment, he requests this Court that if the further proceedings before the executing Court is not stayed, the appeal filed by him before the Civil Judge (Senior Division) and JMFC, Nanjangud, will become infructuous and that the decree holder will execute a decree. Therefore, he requests this Court to set aside the order passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division,

Click Here to Read the rest of this document