The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for caution in accepting compromise petitions and passing ex parte orders of eviction to prevent abuse of the court process.

JUDGMENT :

1. This revision has been preferred against an order passed by the Small Causes Court allowing an application filed under Order XXI Rule 99 CPC by the objector/1st respondent herein thereby ordering restoration of possession of the 1st respondent/objector in Ex.1315/2015 (arising out of an order of eviction passed in S.C.No.314/2015). By the said order, costs of Rs.10,000.00 has also been imposed against the petitioner.

2. By the same order, a compromise decree passed in the eviction suit filed by the petitioner based on which the execution had been filed by the petitioner herein, has also been set aside.

3. Ultimately, a positive direction has been issued to direct the decree holder/petitioner herein to restore physical possession of the execution petition schedule property to the objector/1st respondent herein within one month.

4. The facts, which are not in dispute, are as follows:

4.1 On 8/7/2004, by way of a Sale Deed executed by Nagaraju, the GPA holder of Siddappa and Rajanna, site Nos.53 and 54 were sold to the petitioner herein.

4.2 On 17/3/2006, site Nos.42, 53 and 54 were sold by Siddappa and Rajanna directly in favour of the 1st respondent herein C.S.Lalitha.

4.3 In the Year 2012, the petitioner herein filed a suit in O.S.No.244/2012 seeking for a decree of injunction in respect of the property in question against the 1st respondent herein and her son in the said suit, an ex parte interim order was granted. However, on appearance by the 1st respondent and on an application made by her for vacating the interim order, the Trial Court proceeded to vacate the interim order.

4.4 The petitioner, being aggrieved, preferred an appeal in M.F.A.No.5894/2012 and the said appeal, by a judgment dtd. 28/6/2012 was also dismissed.

4.5 After the dismissal of the said appeal, the 1st respondent herein and her son filed O.S.No.8256/2012 seeking for a declaration that the Sale Deed executed by C.Nagaraju allegedly on behalf of Siddappa and Rajanna was null and void and not binding on the 1st respondent and her son. A decree of injunction was also sought for in the said suit.

4.6 During the pendency of these two suits and three years after the suits had been instituted, on 26/3/2015, the petitioner, filed a Small Cause suit in S.C.No.314/2015 against one Suresha. She claimed that she had inducted the said Suresha as a tenant into the premises standing on site Nos.53 and 54. She contended that said Suresha was in possession as a tenant and despite her request to vacate the premises, he had not agreed and he was also not paying rents as per the agreement and she was, therefore, entitled for possession of the property in question.

4.7 The said suit was referred to Lok Adalat. Before the Lok Adalat, a compromise petition was filed, whereby, Suresha agreed to hand over possession of the suit property on or before 28/5/2015 and on the basis of the said compromise decree, the suit was decreed in terms of the compromise petition.

4.8 The petitioner contending that the compromise decree was not complied with, proceeded to file an execution petition in Ex.No.1315/2015 on 18/6/2015. In the said execution petition, possession of the premises was delivered to the petitioner on 1/7/2015 with police help.

4.9 On 13/7/2015, the 1st respondent filed an application under Order XXI Rule 99 CPC in Ex.No.1315/2015 contending that she was the owner of the premises and there was abundant material to indicate that she was in possession under an independent title and yet under a decree obtained against Suresha, which did not bind her, she had been dispossessed.

4.10 She also contended that there were two suits, one filed by the petitioner and another filed by her, pending consideration in respect of the very same property and suppressing all these facts, a Small Cause suit had been filed and fraudulently a compromise decree had been obtained by the petitioner herein.

4.11 The Trial Court, initially, by an order dtd. 23/6/2017 allowed the application and directed