1. These revision petitions are directed against the order passed by the X Addl. Small Causes Judge, Bangalore in Execution Nos.1551/2011, 1552/2011 & 1553/2011 dismissing the application filed under Order 21 Rule 97 & 99 R/W Section 151 CPC by the revision petitioners as objectors as not maintainable.

2. I have heard the arguments of Sri K Chandranath Ariga, learned Advocate appearing for revision petitioners and Sri Sangamesh R.B., learned Advocate appearing for respondents-1 to 3 and perused the order under challenge as also records secured from the trial Court. Parties are referred to by their rank in the Executing Court.

3. The Executing Court has dismissed these applications on the ground that report submitted by the Court Ameen would indicate that judgment debtors were in possession of the schedule premises at the time of executing the decree and contention of the objectors that they were in possession of the property and subsequently dispossessed by the Court Ameen forcibly prima facie holds no water amongst other reasons assigned by it. It is this order which is under challenge in these revision petitions.

CONTENTIONS OF OBJECTORS:

(a) Though objectors have stated in the application that judgment debtors had surrendered possession of the petition schedule premises to them, Executing Court did not hold an enquiry in to the claim made by the objectors to ascertain whether objectors were in possession of schedule properties;

(b) Though objector caused obstruction to the execution of the decree, Executing Court did not determine as to whether objector is bound by the decree or not and no enquiry was held;

(c) Executing Court without holding enquiry under Order XXI Rule 97 to 101 CPC has erroneously given a finding that M.R. Manjappa had lost right, title and interest over the property, which finding could not have been arrived at without enquiry;

(d) When the finding given by the Court of Small Causes in HRC Nos.593 & 596/2002 that petitioners therein are entitled to be in possession and enjoyment of schedule premises “until mortgage is redeemed” it could not have held that owners (objectors) have lost right, title and interest over the property;

(e) Though tenants of the suit schedule premises had delivered possession to the objectors and the objectors had caused obstruction for decree being executed without holding enquiry, applications could not have been dismissed;

(f) All disputes between the decree holder and any person objecting to it, is to be adjudicated by the Executing Court to avoid long drawn procedure of adjudicating a suit; and

(g) The decree holders are not the owners and when tenants were inducted by its owners namely, the predecessor in title of the objectors, possession delivered to the rightful owners is legal and proper which was not erroneously considered by the Executing Court.

4. In support of his submissions, he relies upon the following judgments:

“(1) AIR 1998 SC 1827-SHREENATH AND ANOTHER V/S RAJESH AND OTHERS

(2) ILR 1991 KAR 254-M/S PARAMOUND INDUSTRIES V/S C.M. MALLIGA”

CONTENTIONS OF DECREE HOLDER:

5. Per contra, Sri Sangamesh, learned Advocate appearing for the decree holders would support the order of the Executing Court and contends as under:

“(a) Objectors were not present at the time of executing the decree and no material whatsoever has been placed to establish their possession;

(b) There is a collusion between obstructors and judgment debtors to defeat the decree passed by competent Court;

(c) The primary requirement to maintain an application under Order XXI Rule 97 & 99 of CPC is that, objector should be in possession;

(d) If objector has no possessory right in addition to there being no title, the Executing Court is within its jurisdiction to dismiss the application as not maintainable;

(e) The memos filed by the tenants in HRC Nos.592, 593 & 596/2002 stating that they have surrendered possession to the owners came to be rejected on 29.06.2011 and said order having not been challenged, the