1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the objector in E P No.2670/2015 on the file of the XIX Additional Small Causes Judge, at Bengaluru, aggrieved by rejection of his application filed under Order 21 Rule 97 of CPC.

2. The facts of the case to be stated in brief are that the respondents No.1 to 4 filed SC No.2414/2011 for ejectment of 5th respondent herein on the ground that they are the owners of the suit property. They requested the respondent No.5 to vacate and handover the vacant possession of the suit schedule property. The said suit was decreed by the judgment and decree dated 21.9.2012. In C R P No.479/2012 by the order dated 6.2.2013 the above judgment and decree was set aside by this Court and matter was remanded. By the judgment and decree dated 29.7.2013 the suit was decreed directing the 5th respondent to vacate and handover the vacant possession of the suit schedule property within three months and directed respondent No.5 to pay damages of Rs.3,000/- per month to the plaintiff.

3. The above judgment and decree was subject matter of challenge in C R P No.472/2013 at the instance of the 5th respondent and it was dismissed by the order dated 30.9.2015 granting four months to vacate.

4. The respondents No.1 to 4 filed E P No.2670/2015 in which delivery warrant was ordered. As the delivery warrant could not be executed as the petitioner who was the joint tenant of the premises refused to give access through main entrance to the remaining portion of the property bearing No.99, thereby the Respondents No.1 to 4 filed two applications under Section 151 CPC one for police protection and another for break open the Western wall of the schedule property to execute the delivery warrant. The petitioner filed objector application under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC.

5. The court below by the order dated 16.3.2016 dismissed the application seeking to demolish the western wall, allowed the application for grant of police protection and dismissed the objector application.

6. This petition is filed against dismissal of the application of the petitioner filed under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC.

7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is a joint tenant along with 5th respondent and also a joint agreement holder with him to purchase the schedule property. In this regard both petitioner and 5th respondent have filed suit O S No.8582/2012 seeking specific performance of the agreement. It is submitted that the petitioner – objector has an independent right and also joint agreement holder to purchase the suit schedule property. R1 to R4 are aware of this fact and have admitted this fact. However, they have chosen to institute eviction suit only against respondent No.5 and not against both the joint tenants. The suit premises is a commercial property. The petitioner along with respondent No.5 jointly continued to do business in the suit property after the demise of their father in their independent right. The application filed under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC ought to have been enquired, without which miscarriage has been occurred. The matters relating to independent right and whether the petitioner is bound by the decree require adjudication and the court below without answering any of the said questions has straight away held that no such enquiry is required which is erroneous.

9. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that since admittedly the petitioner is a joint tenant, no independent notice is necessary to the petitioner, he is not required to be made a party to the eviction suit and thus the order dismissing the application filed under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC passed by the court below is justified requiring no interference.

10. The point that arises for consideration is, whether the order passed by the court below dismissing the application filed under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC suffers from any infirmity or irregularity