Revision petition against obstruction if will lie.

This revision petition is filed by the Court auction purchaser, who was obstructed when he tried to take delivery of possession pursuant to his purchase. The execution petition in W.P.No.154 of 1984 was filed by the decree-holder. The petitioner herein filed E.A.No.576 of 1985 for delivery of possession under 0.21, Rule 95, C.P.C. There was obstruction at the instance of the second respondent and E.A.No.23 of 1986 was filed for removal of obstruction by the petitioner herein. The executing Court disposed of the petitions for delivery of possession and removal of obstruction together by a common order. Taking the view that the second respondent herein is a tenant under the judgment-debtor from about December, 1984 and that he is entitled to continue in possession as such, the court dismissed the petitions filed by the auction purchaser. Aggrieved by the said order the auction purchaser has preferred this revision petition. In the preamble of the memorandum of grounds it is stated as follows:

"On enquiry the executing court, namely the Subordinate Judge, Periakulam dismissed the petition and the petition for delivery of possession in F.A.No.576 of 1985 by a common order dated 9. 1987. The learned Judge has no jurisdiction in law to dismiss those petitions and questioning the correctness of the said order, the present revision petition is filed on the following among other grounds."

Thus, the auction purchaser purported to file this revision petition against both the orders passed by the Subordinate Judge, Periakulam.

2. An objection is taken by the second respondent that the revision petition is not maintainable inasmuch as an appeal lies against the order dismissing the application for removal of obstruction. According to learned counsel, appeal would lie only in the District Court and not in this Court. It is also contended that there cannot be one revision against two orders and the present revision petition is not maintainable. It is further argued that as there is no appeal against the order dismissing the application for removal of obstruction it is not open to the auction purchaser to seek an order for delivery of possession in this revision petition and, therefore, it is not sustainable.

3. Before considering the technical objections raised by learned counsel for the second respondent it is necessary to refer to the following facts: The auction sale was held on 12. 1985. The petitioner purchased the property for a sum of Rs.20,010. It was confirmed on 110. 1985. He filed the petition for delivery of possession on 12. 1985. The executing court passed an order on that day directing delivery by 20.12.1985. It was obstructed by the second respondent. He filed an objection even on 20.12.1985. Thereafter the petitioner filed an application for removal of obstruction on 2Z1.1986.

4. The second respondent has given evidence in this proceeding. In his chief-examination he has stated that he has been residing as tenant of the petition premises for about 11/2 years. The deposition was given on 4. 1986. Calculating backwards it may take him to November, 1984. He has produced certain electricity bills to show that he had been paying the consumption charges as tenant of the premises. They are marked as Ex.B-6 series. He has admitted that the receipts stand in the name of the judgment-debtor’s father, who died twenty years previously. The receipts bear the dates 15. 1985, 19. 1985, 111. 1985 and 112. 1985. Though he has denied the suggestion that he has obtained the receipts from the judgment-debtor and produced them, it is quite obvious that he did not make the payments himself. Ex.B-8 is a receipt for payment of house-tax. It bears the date 2. 1986 i.e., after the filing of the obstruction petition. That will not help him. Ex. B-7 is a letter purported to have been written by one Arunachalam Chettiar to the petition premises addressed to the second respondent herein. The letter bears the date 112. 1985. Even assuming it i