The judgment established that objections under Order 21, Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure are the sole remedy for resolving disputes in execution proceedings.

R. Gururajan, J.—Defendants are Appellants before this Court. They are challenging the order dated 4.9.2000 passed on I As No. 1 and 2 in OS No. 1256 of 2000 by the VIII Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore. The defendants are the landlords of the suit schedule premises and the Respondents were the tenants. An application was filed by the Appellant in HRC No. 1 of 1999 on the file of the Small Causes Judge, Bangalore. The said application filed by the Appellant-landlord for eviction of the residential premises was allowed and the tenant was directed to vacate and hand over vacant possession on or before 31.10.1999. The said order came to be passed pursuant to the compromise petition filed by the Appellants and the Respondents.

2. These being the facts of the case, the present Respondents filed a suit in OS No. 1256 of 2000 before the City Civil Court seeking for a declaration declaring that they are having an independent tenancy rights. They also sought for stay of the operation of the decree passed in HRC No. 1 of 1999, dated 6.2.1999 and also stay of the execution proceedings in Ex. No. 2778 of 1999. Appellants entered appearance and filed a detailed statement of objections along with an application for vacating the ex-parte stay order granted in the said suit. Learned Civil Judge heard the matter and rejected the said application filed by the Appellants for vacating the exparte stay order and allowed the application filed by the Respondents. It is this order that is challenged before me by the Appellant landlord.

3. Respondents have entered caveat. With the consent of the parties the matter is taken up for final disposal on merits.

4. Learned Counsel for the Appellant-landlord contended that the Respondent tenant has already filed an application objecting to the execution of the decree in the execution proceedings under Order 21, Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure. He argued that having availed the remedy before the executing Court, he cannot have the stay of the very execution in which he has already filed objections before the executing Court executing the decree in favour of the Appellant. His submission is that the learned Trial Judge without considering these aspects of the matter has exercised his discretionary power in an arbitrary manner requiring my interference.

5. Per contra, learned Counsel for the contesting Respondent argued that there is no bar for maintaining a suit in a matter like this. His further argument is that the earlier order is not binding on him and even after filing objections he is entitled not only to maintain a suit but also to seek an order of stay.

6. After hearing the rival pleas, made by the learned Counsel on either side, I once again perused the order of the trial Judge. The admitted facts are that the Appellant herein filed HRC No. 1 of 1999 and an order was passed in terms of the compromise ordering eviction of the premises by October, 1999. The said order is being executed in Ex. Case No. 2778 of 1999. Objections have been filed by the present Respondent objecting to the execution of the decree and the said application is pending. It is thereafter he has filed the present suit and has obtained an order of stay, as I see from the order of the learned trial Judge. Learned trial Judge after noticing the arguments on either side has ruled that a prima facie case is made out before him. According to him the balance of convenience lies more in favour of the Respondent and irreparable injury is caused to the Respondent if the interim stay is not granted on the facts of this case. After applying my mind to the facts of the case, argument of the counsel on either side, and the impugned order, I am of the view that the Respondents having availed a remedy by way of objection before the Court though can maintain a suit, cannot have the benefit of an injunction on the peculiar facts of this case. Admittedly, a compromise petition has been arrived at and time was granted till October, 1999