The Court upheld the validity of lower court orders dismissing attempts to obstruct execution, confirming that the properties in question were distinct, thus allowing the Decree Holder to enforce the decree.

COMMON ORDER

Since the lis involved in all these three Civil Revision Petitions is intertwined and as the parties to the proceedings are one and the same, all the Civil Revision Petitions are being disposed of by this common order.

C .R.P. No.441 of 2021

2. This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order in E.A. No.6 of 2021 in E.P. No.163 of 2015 in O.S. No.378 of 2010 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Nizamabad.

C .R.P. No.456 of 2021:

3. Civil Revision Petition No.456 of 2021 is filed against the docket order dated 17.02.2021 in E.A. No.7 of 2021 in E.P. No.163 of 2015 in O.S. No.378 of 2010 whereby the Court below had dismissed the petition filed by the defendant/JDr under Order XXI Rule 26 read with Section 151 of CPC to stay all further execution proceedings pending consideration of objections filed under Order XXI Rule 97 which was the subject mater of E.A. No.6 of 2021.

C .R.P. No.457 of 2021:

4. Civil Revision Petition No.457 of 2021 is filed against the docket order dated 17.02.2021 in E.A. No.8 of 2021 in E.P. No.163 of 2015 in O.S. No.378 of 2010 whereby the Court below dismissed the petition filed by the defendant/JDr under Section 151 CPC to recall the warrant issued under Order XXI Rule 35 by considering the objections filed under Order XXI Rule

97 CPC the subject matter of E.A. No.6 of 2021.

5. The plaintiff filed the subject suit for eviction of the defendant from the suit schedule property bearing No.7-10-996 and recovery of arrears of rent.

6. Heard Sri V. Satyam Reddy, learned Counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri Y.S. Yella Nand Gupta, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent and perused the record.

7. The petitioner in all these Civil Revision Petitions is the Judgment Debtor (JDr)/defendant in E.P. and the respondent herein is the Decree Holder (Dhr)/plaintiff in E.P. No.163 of

2015.

8. The parties are referred to as per the position in the suit.

9. Civil Revision Petition No.441 of 2021 is filed aggrieved by the order dated 17.02.2021 in E.A. No.6 of 2021 whereby the underlying application filed by the defendant in the suit under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC is dismissed.

10. The defendant in the suit filed the underlying application raising objections to the show cause notice issued under Order XXI Rule 35 CPC dated 05.01.2021 whereby the defendant who is JDr in the aforesaid suit is directed to put the plaintiff/DHr in possession of the suit schedule property to an extent of 440 square feet consisting of hall, one room and open place in front of hall and room forming part of first floor of RCC roofed house bearing No.7-10-996, RP road, Nizamabad city, admeasuring 440 square feet, pursuant to order dated 14.02.2020 in E.P.

No.163 of 2015 in O.S. No.378 of 2010.

11. The defendant in the aforesaid suit who is the J.Dr had filed the underlying interlocutory application before the Court below claiming that the schedule of property mentioned in the notice issued under Order XXI Rule 35 CPC is subject matter of a suit filed in O.S. No.61 of 2016 and, as such, the schedule of property cannot be directed to be put in possession of the DHr by delivering vacant possession.

12. It is also the further case of the defendant that the JDr is tenant of the plaintiff/DHr in the suit bearing No.7-10-996, while the defendant is also tenant of another property belonging to one Krishna Rani bearing house No.7-10-993/1 and as such both the properties are different and distinct and thus, the petitioner/J.Dr cannot be directed to deliver the possession of the schedule property to the respondent/DHr.

13. The petitioner/JDr