ORDER: The petitioners whose application under O.21, Rule 97, Civil Procedure Code was rejected have filed the present civil revision petition.

2. According to the averments in the petition filed in the Court below, the shops subject matter of the civil revision petition at 28th Cross Street, Indira Nagar, Adyar, Chennai-20, were allotted to the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 respectively. They had put up their own construction, obtained electricity connection and had been carrying on the business. The allotment was made to the first petitioner to put up a mechanical shed and to the second petitioner to put up a wet grinder. The first respondent filed W.P.No.10700 of 1989 where one Ganapathy Automobiles, one V.K.G. Durai and one Meena Auto Works were made the sixth, seventh and eighth respondents and the prayer was for a mandamus to abate the nuisance caused by them. The writ petition was ordered by this Court on 19.9.1998 directing the said respondents to apply for license from the Corporation to carry on their workshop and other business and obtain orders from the Corporation. In the order passed in the writ petition it was stated that the respondents had paid the license fee. Therefore, four weeks time was granted to pass orders thereon. The learned Judge left it open to the first respondent therein namely the Commissioner, Corporation of Madras, to consider the question of nuisance. On 23.9.1994, the first petitioner obtained a decree in O.S.No.2711 of 1993 for permanent injunction restraining the Chairman, Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board, who is the second respondent herein from interfering with her possession. Subsequently, they came to know that the first respondent had obtained decree on 28.2.1994 in O.S.No.7712 of 1990. They also learnt that this suit was filed by the first respondent against the second respondent for a mandatory injunction to remove the automobile workshop tinkering, welding and painting in the suit properties. The petitioners were not parties to the suit. The first respondent filed E.P.No.2043 of 1996 to execute the decree obtained by him on 28.2.1994 in O.S.No.7712 of 1990. After getting details of the suit the petitioners filed O.S.No.1404 of 1998 for cancelling the decree and also for an application to stay the operation of the decree. The petitioners also filed an application under O.21, Rule 97, Civil Procedure Code in the Execution Petition filed by the first respondent to adjudicate upon her right. This was rejected and hence the above civil revision petition was filed.

3. The Registry posted the civil revision petition for maintainability and at this itself notice was ordered and the respondents entered appearance. The civil revision petition itself was argued by both the parties extensively.

4. Mr.C.Rajagopalan, learned counsel for the petitioner made the following submission. The properties had been allotted to the petitioners for the purpose specified above as a rehabilitation measure and they have also been carrying on the business for the last 12 or 13 years and therefore, their possession cannot be disturbed except in accordance with law. The decree which is sought to be executed for mandatory injunction will result in their dispossession and therefore, though they are strangers to the suit their application under O.21, Rule 97, Civil Procedure Code must be heard. Though in the written statement filed by the second respondent in the suit O.S.No.1404 of 1998 referred to above it is stated that the allotment has been cancelled, he is instructed by the parties to state that they have challenged the cancellation by way of appeal to the Government and no orders have been passed thereupon. In any event the fact remains that they are in possession of the properties in question. He relied on the following decisions to support his case, that the petitioners are entitled to file an application under O.21, Rule 97, Civil Procedure Code and to have their rights adjudicated upon.

(1) Bhanwar Lal v. Satyanarain

Click Here to Read the rest of this document