The decree in an original suit binds only the parties involved and does not affect third-party rights, which must be pursued separately in the appropriate forum.

The petitioners claiming to be the owners of the suit schedule property in O.S.No.06/2016, filed the said suit before the V Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Belagavi, against one Smt. Anjanabai, who was the defendant. The said suit was filed with a prayer of permanent and mandatory injunction against the defendant therein. It ended in a compromise, wherein the defendant therein acknowledged that the petitioners herein (plaintiffs therein) are the owners of the suit schedule property and that she will not interfere in their peaceful possession or encroach upon the property.

2. Subsequently, on the ground of violation of the compromise, the petitioners herein filed an Execution Case No.511/2016 before the V Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Belagavi. The respondent herein sought to implead himself as a party to the proceedings in the Execution Case on the ground that he is a tenant under the petitioners herein in respect of the suit schedule property and the proceedings before the Land Tribunal are pending to determine his tenancy rights and the petitioners herein by way of enforcing the decree passed in the Original Suit against the defendant therein are in fact trying to enforce the same against the respondent herein. The Execution Court allowed the application filed by the respondent herein and permitted him to participate in the proceedings, as the respondent was able to show that the proceedings were pending in respect of the suit schedule property before the jurisdictional Land Tribunal. Aggrieved by the said order passed in Execution Case No.511/2016 on I.A.No.II, the present writ petition is filed.

3. The operative portion of the order passed on I.A.No.II in Execution Case No.511/2016 is as under: “I.A.No.II filed by the Plaintiff Under Order I RULE 10(2) R/w. Section 151 of C.P.C. IS hereby allowed. In the result, the opponent viz.,

Shri.Ratansingh Adopted S/o.

Raghunathsingh Thakur is ordered to be brought on record as third party objector in the present case.

The decree holder is directed to carry out consequential amendment in the petition and also directed to furnish amended petition copy by next date of hearing.

Under the circumstance there shall be no order as to costs.”

4. Admittedly, the rights determined in O.S.No.06/2016 on the file of the V Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Belagavi, determines the right in personam in respect of the suit schedule property between the plaintiffs and defendant therein, and it does not determine the rights of the respondent herein in respect of the suit schedule property. The petitioners herein, who were the plaintiffs in the original suit, can enforce the decree passed therein only in respect of the defendant therein in Execution Case No.511/2016 and not the respondent herein. If the respondent has any right over the same, he is always at liberty to enforce his right over the property in the manner known to law.

5. Further, if the petitioners are of the opinion that they require certain remedies against the respondent in respect of the suit schedule property, they are always at liberty to approach the appropriate forum in accordance with law.

6. For the said reason, there is no requirement of impleading the respondent herein in Execution Case No.511/2016.

7. For the aforementioned reasons, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 18.07.2016 passed on I.A.No.II in Execution Case No.511/2016 by the V Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Belagavi, impleading respondent herein as party to the proceedings, is hereby set aside and consequently, I.A.No.II filed in Execution Case No.511/2016 is hereby dismissed.