G. Rajasuria, J.

Compendiously and concisely the relevant facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of A.No.1505 of 2010 application would run thus:

(i) The respondents herein, as plaintiffs(hereinafter referred to as the decree holders for short), have obtained the decree dated 10.11.2002 in C.S.No.435 of 1982 for obtaining delivery of possession of the property described in the schedule of the decree concerned. Whereupon they filed the E.P.No.117 of 2009 for obtafining delivery of possession by citing the judgement debtors as respondents therein. Before the Master when the matter came up, the Master ordered delivery and he subsequently understood from the Amins report that there had been some inconvenience for the Amin to execute the warrant, as other than the judgement debtors some third parties were in the premises. Consequently, the 3rd parties (hereinafter referred to as the obstructors) filed the application No.6758 of 2009 with the following prayer:

"to record our objection and treat the applicants as obstructors of the decree."

(ii) Counter has been filed resisting the same, by the decree holders.

(iii) The learned Master, after hearing both sides, dismissed the application.

2. Being aggrieved by and dis-satisfied with the order of the learned Master this application has been focussed on various grounds, the gist and kernal, the pith and marrow of them would run thus:

(a) The Master, without considering the independent right of the obstructors as tenants in the suit property and without even giving an opportunity of marshalling evidence during the enquiry, which the Master was expected to conduct, the he simply dismissed the application by holding as though the obstructors were having no independent right over it.

(b) To the knowledge of the decree holders, the obstructors entered into the property as sub-lessees under one Jothi and her husband Renganathan and they were not aware of the pendency of the suit, namely, C.S.N.435 of 1982.

(c) The obstructors spent huge amount in modifying the structure of the property and also in maintaining it.

(d) The obstructors are doing business in the premises and if they are summarily thrown away it would cause discomfiture and loss of money to them.

(e) The obstructors are ready to pay the rent directly to the decree holders and continue in the premises.

3. In fact, placing reliance on the above said grounds the learned counsel for the obstructors would further submit that at one point of time during the pendency of the said suit itself, the plaintiffs/decree holders took steps to implead the obstructors herein as parties, virtually recognising them as tenants in the suit property, but subsequently even without serving notice on the obstructors, the former allowed the said application to be dismissed.

4. All these fact, according to the learned counsel, the obstructors came to know only subsequently. Behind the back of the obstructors/judgement debtors, a collusive ex-parte decree was obtained by the decree holders and the obstructors are totally in the dark as to what happened actually in this matter during the pendency of the suit stage including the trial stage. Without giving due opportunity of being heard to the obstructors they cannot be deprived of their valid independent right as tenants in the E.P.Schedule mentioned property and accordingly, the learned counsel prays for setting aside the order of the Master and for remitting the matter back to the Master for conducting a regular trial as contemplated under Order 21 Rule 101 of C.P.C.

5. By way of torpedoing and pulverising the arguments as put forth on the side of the obstructors, the learned counsel for the decree holders advanced and set forth his arguments, the gist and kernal, the pith and marrow of the same would run thus:

(i) Absolutely there is no whisper in the affidavit that there was collusion between the judgement debtors and the decree holders.

(ii) It is a trite proposition