The executing Court's findings were justified, and there were no valid grounds to interfere or reverse the findings given by the executing Court.

Ashok G Nijagannavar, J.

The petitioners in C.R.P. No.263/2017 and C.R.P. No.264/2017 are the decree holders in execution No.15131/2013. The respondent No.1 is the judgment debtor and respondent No.2 is the objector.

2. Civil Revision Petition No.263/2017 is filed by the petitioners for setting aside the impugned order dated 01.04.2017 passed on I.A. No.3 under Order XXI Rule 98, 99 to 101 r/w 151 of CPC, filed by the respondent No.2/objector.

3. Civil Revision Petition No.264/2017 is filed by the petitioners for setting aside the impugned order dated 01.04.2017 passed on application (I.A. No.8) under Order XXI Rule 97 of CPC, filed by the decree holders/petitioners.

4. The facts briefly stated are that the petitioners had filed a suit for ejectment against the respondent No.1 herein after terminating the tenancy, which was numbered as S.C. No.15883/2011. The suit was decreed on 04.12.2012. The said judgment and decree was not challenged by the respondent No.1. Therefore, the petitioners filed execution petition which was numbered as E.P. No.15131/2013 and the same was pending before the Additional Small Causes Judge, Mayo Hall, Bangalore. The schedule premises described in the eviction petition was bearing No.85/14, II Floor, Sheriff House, 85, Richmond Road, Bangalore, measuring 100' x 60'. The petitioners took the vacant possession of the schedule premises by breaking open the lock with police help, by filing application under Order XXI Rule 35(3) of CPC. The respondent No.2/objector by name Sri.K.S.Ponnappa, s/o. late K.K.Subbaiah, Advocate, filed application under Order XXI Rule 98, 99 and 100 of CPC and also filed application under Section 144 of CPC. The said applications went into trial. As against the application under Section 144 of CPC, the objector filed W.P. Nos.11610/2014 and 11900/2014 before the High Court of Karnataka. These two petitions were disposed of vide orders dated 25.09.2014 with a direction to restore the possession to the objector and allowed I.A. under Section 144 of CPC. Considering the rival contentions of the parties, the Hon'ble High Court directed the decree holders to put the petitioner (respondent No.2/objector) back in possession of the premises.

5. In pursuance of the said order, the executing court issued delivery warrants to hand over the possession to the respondent No.2/objector.

6. On hearing both parties, the trial Court has allowed I.A. Nos.2 and 3 filed by the respondent No.2/objector under Section 144 of CPC and under Order XXI Rules 98, 99 and 101 of CPC and rejected I.A. No.8 filed by the decree holders under Order XXI Rule 97 against the respondent No.2/objector.

7. Being aggrieved by the order passed on both I.As., the petitioners have filed these civil revision petitions.

8. As per the records pertaining to this case, the factual situation is, that respondent Nos.1 to 9 claiming to be the owners of the petition schedule property, had filed a suit seeking ejectment of respondent No.1 - M/s.Siraj & Renu from the premises bearing No.85/14, II Floor, Sheriff House, 85, Richmond Road, Bangalore. An exparte decree was obtained by the owners -respondent Nos.1 to 9 herein against the tenant - defendant in S.C. No.5883/2011 vide judgment and decree dated 04.12.2012. Thereafter, execution proceedings were initiated in E.P. No.15131/2013. Court notice was issued to the judgment debtor. As the judgment debtor did not appear, delivery warrant was ordered on 12.04.2013. The Bailiff visited the premises at 12.30 p.m. on 18.12.2013 and found the door locked. There was a name board of an Advocate by name Sri.K.S.Ponnappa. The Bailiff recorded that he waited near the place for half an hour but neither the judgment debtor nor anybody came to the spot to open the door. Hence, the Bailiff could not execute the warrant. He drew up a mahazar recording the said fact and after taking the signatures of two panch witnesses, sent the report to the Court.

9. Thereafter, the decree holders filed an appli