The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of Order 21 Rule 101 of the Civil Procedure Code, which determines that all questions arising between parties to a proceeding on an application under Rule 97 or Rule 99 shall be determined by the court dealing with the application, and not by a separate suit.

JUDGMENT :

1. Both these appeals are directed against the impugned judgments and decrees dated 28.01.2016 passed in O.S.No.712/2014 and O.S.No.711/2014 by the learned XIX Addl.City Civil Judge, Bangalore, whereby the said suits filed by the appellants – plaintiffs against the respondents – defendants for permanent injunction and other reliefs in respect of the suit schedule immovable properties were dismissed by the trial court.

2. Heard the learned counsel for appellants and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record.

3. A perusal of the material on record including the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the trial court will indicate that the appellants were the plaintiffs in both the suits, while the defendants were different; however, the subject matter of both the suits were adjacent premises and common questions of fact and law arose for consideration in both the suits.

4. The respondents herein who were arrayed as defendants in both the suits have contested the same; in addition thereto, the 2nd respondent – 2nd defendant filed applications -I.A.2 in both the suits under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC interalia contending that in view of the provisions contained in Order 21 Rule 101 CPC, the suits by the appellants – plaintiffs claiming to be the obstructers/objectors were not maintainable and the plaints were liable to be rejected and the suits were also liable to be dismissed. The said applications having been opposed by the appellants – plaintiffs, the trial court proceeded to pass the impugned order, allowing the aforesaid I.A.No.2 in both the suits and consequently, rejecting the plaints and passing the impugned judgments and decrees dismissing the suits filed by the appellants – plaintiffs, who are before this Court by way of the present appeals.

5. A perusal of the impugned judgments and decrees will indicate that the trial court has noticed that the specific claim of the appellants – plaintiffs was that they are entitled to contest the execution proceedings instituted by respondent No.2 against respondent No.1 as obstructers/objectors having already filed applications under Order 21 Rules 97 and 99 of CPC. Under these circumstances, the trial court came to the conclusion that having already filed the aforesaid applications in the execution proceedings, the suits filed by the appellants – plaintiffs were barred by Order 21 Rule 101 of CPC and consequently, the suits were liable to be dismissed as not maintainable in law. While coming to the said conclusion, the trial court held as under:-

In O.S.No.712/2014

2. In the affidavit annexed to I.A.No.II, defendant No.2 has stated that he is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and leased it in favour of 1st defendant by executing Registered Lease Deed dtd: 25/2/2011 and thereafter, 1st defendant failed to pay rentals and then, he terminated the tenancy of 1st defendant by initiating proceedings in A.C.No.5/2013 before the arbitrator as per Clause 20 of the lease agreement. The arbitrator passed the award on 17/8/2013 and to comply with the said award, he has filed Ex.No.3123/2013 before this court against first defendant. In the said execution proceedings, the present plaintiff claimed to be the sub-lessee under 1st defendant and filed Objector application under Order XXI R.97 r/w 151 CPC and it is pending for adjudication. During pendency of said application under Order XXI R.97 r/w 151 CPC, plaintiff is debarred from filing the present suit and hence, suit is not maintainable. The prayer sought by plaintiff is not at all maintainable even under the provisions of Specific Relief Act. Hence, prayed for allowing the annexed application.

3. The plaintiff has filed objections to I.A.No.II stating that I.A. is not maintainable either in law or on facts. He has contended that plaintiff is a registered sublessee under 1st defendant and there is a provision for sub-lease in the registered sale agreement in favour of 1st defendant.