JUDGMENT

1. Heard Mr. Lotlikar, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Desai, learned Counsel for the respondent no. 6.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Mr. Shivan Desai, learned Counsel, waives service on behalf of the respondent no. 6. Heard finally by consent of parties.

3. The short question, arises for consideration, is, whether, the Executing Court was justified in continuing enquiry, in an Application, purporting to have been filed by the third party, under Order XXI, Rules 97 and 101 of the CPC, although, enquiry has revealed that third party-respondent no. 6 was pendente lite of the judgment debtor.

4. Briefly stated facts of the case are as under:

The petitioners instituted a suit in the Court of Civil Judge Senior Division at Panaji, being Special Civil Suit No. 97/1996/B, for dissolution of partnership; recovery of mesne profits and eviction of judgment debtor nos. 1 to 5(i), who were defendants in the said suit. It was the petitioner's case that the original plaintiff no. 1 was tenant of the suit premises, wherein the business of defendant no. 1 (partnership firm) was carried on. In terms of partnership deed, the tenancy rights of the said premises conti