JUDGMENT

E.S. Indiresh, J. - This Revision Petition is filed by the impleading applicant/objector in Execution Petition No. 98 of 2002 on the file of the II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC at Chikkamagalur, rejecting the application filed under Order XXI 21 Rule 35(1) read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure.

2. Relevant facts for adjudication of this Revision Petition are that HRC No. 6 of 1992 was filed by Smt. Vasantamala Dattatri against one Sri Dheerubhai under Section 21(1)(f) and (h) of Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (for short hereinafter referred to as 'Act') and the said proceedings came to be allowed and same was challenged before the Additional District Judge, Chikkamaglur in Rev.(Rent) No. 35 of 1996 of and the said Revision also came to be dismissed. Being aggrieved by the same, HRRP No. 394 of 2000 was filed before this Court, which also ended up in dismissal and while examining the plea of tenant for grant of time, this Court granted one year time to the tenant to vacate on the condition that the tenant therein shall file an undertaking to the said effect. It is an undisputed fact that the tenant did not file an undertaking nor vacated the premises and as such, the decree holder-Smt. Vasantamala Dattatri filed Execution Petition No. 98 of 2002 before the Executing Court, to enforce the judgment and decree of the trial Court. In the said Execution Proceedings, brother of the petitioner herein filed an application under Order XXI Rule 97 of Code of Civil Procedure and the said application came to be rejected and same was confirmed by the District Court in Regular Appeal No. 2000 of 2012 and also confirmed by this Court in Regular Second Appeal No. 2051 of 2012. In the Execution Proceedings No. 98 of 2002, the petitioner herein/objector filed an application under Order XXI Rule 35(1) and (3) read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure praying for identification and demarcation of petition schedule property through competent person and the said application was resisted by the decree holder. The trial Court, by its order dated 03rd February, 2015 rejected the said application filed by the objector/petitioner herein and being aggrieved by the same, present Revision Petition is preferred.

3. Heard Sri Vardhaman V. Gunjal, learned counsel appearing for the Revision Petitioner and Sri Datta Prasad G., learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Manmohan P.N., for the respondent.

4. Sri V.V. Gunjal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the rejection of the application filed by the objector/petitioner is without jurisdiction and the petitioner/objector sought for identification and demarcation of his property, as the objector/petitioner was dispossessed unlawfully by the respondent herein and accordingly he sought for interference of this Court. He also referred to the provisions contained under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure and argued that the revision petition is maintainable. Sri Gunjal, further contended that Order XXVI of Code of Civil Procedure does not apply to the proceedings in Executing Court and therefore, he argued that the trial Court, on misconception of fact, has rejected the application. He further contended that the Executing Court has not bestowed its attention to the fact that measurements were uncertain and same was manipulated and were fraudulently changed and it is difficult to identify the particular portion belonging to the petitioner herein in view of dispossession of the petitioner/objector. He also refers to provision contained under Section 47 Code of Civil Procedure and further submitted that the Executing Court ought to have interfered with the impugned order passed by the trial Court. Emphasising on these aspects, he contended that Order VII Rule 3 of Code of Civil Procedure mandates that, if the subject matter of the suit is an immovable property, entire particulars regarding the immoveable properties should be described in the schedule and in the a