P. Surendra vs Hummeera Banu

Vishwanath, J.—The learned Counsel for Revision petitioner is present. Learned Counsel for the respondent had filed the caveat. Heard. Admitted.

In this Revision Petition the petitioner who is not a party to the eviction decree in H.R.C. proceedings which is being executed in Execution Case No. 4 of 1995 on the file of the Court of Munsiff & JMFC., Gundlupet has challenged the order passed by the learned Munsiff dismissing I.A.No. VIII filed under Order 21 Rule 29 read with Section 151 C.P.C. by the Revision Petitioner-applicant, praying that the proceedings in Ex.No. 4 of 1995 arising out of eviction order between the decree-holder in Ex.No. 4/1995 and the Judgment debtor be stayed pending disposal of Original Suit No. 1 of 1995 on the file of the Civil Judge, Nanjangud. The learned Munsiff rejected I.A.No. VIII filed by the present applicant.

The Revision petitioner-applicant is not a party to the H.R.C. decree which is being executed in Execution No. 4 of 1995.

The learned Munsiff dismissed I.A.No. VIII filed by the Revision petitioner-applicant holding that he has no right to make that prayer in I.A.No. VIII. He has come to the conclusion that the Revision petitioner-applicant has no locus standi to pray that Executions No. 4 of 1995 should be stayed pending disposal of Original Suit No. 1 of 1995 on the fife of the Civil Judge, Nanjangud between the Revision petitioner-applicant and the decree-holder.

As per the application of Order 21 Rule 29 C.P.C. if a suit by a judgment-debtor is pending in a Court against the holder of a decree of that Court the execution of the decree may, under this Rule, be stayed until the disposal of the suit. The Revision petitioner-applicant is not a party to the eviction order which is being executed in Execution Case No. 4 of 1995. Clearly, the provisions of Order 21 Rule 29 C.P.C. are not applicable. The order passed by the learned Munsiff rejecting I.A.No. VIII is unassailable. Hence the Revision Petition is dismissed.