SUBHASH BADI, J, J.

( 1 ) THOUGH this matter was posted for orders, it was understood that the same would be heard for final disposal.

( 2 ) THIS appeal is against the order dated 23. 12. 2006 passed against the obstructer, rejecting the objection raised in the execution of the decree. Obstructer is the appellant.

( 3 ) THE appellant obstructer in telegraphic language has stated that, the decree holder had filed HRC No. 10501/90 and the decree holder and the judgment debtor in order to defraud the obstructer entered into lease agreement dated 11. 1. 1988 as per Ex. P. 5 produced in H. R. C. NO. 10501/90. On 22. 8. 1994 HRC 10501/90 was allowed with cost. The judgment debtor was directed to vacate and hand over vacant possession of the schedule premises. On 28. 9. 1994, HRRP no. 959/94 and HRRP No. 1251/1994 were filed by the obstructer against the decree holder as well as the judgment debtor and the said hrrps. were decided in his favour. Thereafter, on 20. 2. 2000, one siddanna, P. A. Holder promised the obstructer that he would give Rs. 10,00,000/- and the damage incurred by the obstructer and only then, the obstructer can hand over vacant possession. Since HRC 10501/ 90 was di

Click Here to Read the rest of this document