The main legal point established is that in small cause suits, intricate questions of title cannot be addressed, and the petitioner's remedy was to establish his right in a duly constituted suit. However, the court also emphasized the need for adjudicating the petitioner's claim on its merits before possession could be claimed against him.

PRAKASH KRISHNA, J.

These two petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by a common judgment as was suggested by the learned Counsel for the parties. The background facts may be noticed in brief. The dispute relates to a double storied building No. B2/211 Bhadaini, Varanasi. The petitioner claims that he is the owner in possession 'of the said building as his name is recorded in the municipal record as owner. The electric connection is also in his name since 1964 and he is paying the house tax to the Nagar Mahapalika, Varanasi There are four shops on the ground floor of the said building facing the main road Its back portion consists of a temple. The rooms are around the said temple.

2. Raghavanand Acharya, the respondent No.3 in writ petition No. 7131 of 1989 who is respondent No.2 in the connected writ petition wants to grab the said property. With this design in the background of his mind, a suit being suit No. 208 of 1982 was filed against the petitioner for declaration etc. The said suit was not pursued any further and was dismissed in default vide order dated 24th of August, 1984.

3. Another suit being SCC suit No. 109 of 1982 was filed by Raghavanand Acharya against Sarvendra Kumar Verma for recovery of arrears of rent, damages and ejectment of the defendant on the ground that there is a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and the tenant has defaulted in paying the arrears of rent. The said suit was decreed ex part on 31st of May, 1983 by JSCC, Varanasi.

4. The petitioner thereafter filed an application for setting aside the ex part decree which was registered as Misc. Case No. 222 of 1985 but the said application was rejected by the Trial Court and the order of the Trial Court has been confirmed in Civil Revision No. 162 of 1986 by the judgment dated 3rd of May, 1989, on the ground that the petitioner being a third party has no locus to maintain such an application for setting aside the expert decree. Challenging these two orders, the writ petition No. 14452 of 1989 has been filed.

5. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. The learned Counsel for the petitioner admits that the petitioner was not arrayed as one of the defendants in the suit. Submission is that the decree obtained in the Small Cause Suit by Raghavanand Acharya affects his right to the property in dispute he is an aggrieved person and thus, can maintain an application to set aside the ex part decree.

7. On a careful consideration, I do not find any merit in the said submission. It was a suit for recovery of arrears of rent and ejectment against the tenant. The suit was of small cause nature. In such a suit the intricate questions of title cannot be gone into in view of the restricted jurisdiction of the Judge Small Causes Court. The remedy of the petitioner is to get his right established and prove in a duly constituted suit as he may be advised. Thus, I find no merit in the petition. The writ petition No. 14452 of 1989 is dismissed.

Writ Petition No. 7131 of 1989

8. The above petition arises out of execution proceedings in Execution Case No. 73 of 1984 of decree obtained by Raghavanand Acharya against his tenant in sec Suit No. 109 of 1982. Execution of the decree was resisted by the petitioner and an objection under Order XXI, Rule 97 C.P.C was filed, claiming his title and ownership qua the property in dispute. The said objections were rejected by the Executive Court by the order dated 12th of August, 1986 and the said order has been confirmed by the Revisional Court in Civil Revision No. 298 of 1986 by the judgment dated December 9, 1988. Challenging these two orders, the present writ petition has been filed.

9. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is not claiming the property in dispute through a judgment debtor. He is claiming his independent right in respect of the property in dispute. The Court below was obliged to decide the objections of th