3. One Tuljaram Hemraj Pardeshi, since deceased, was
tenant residing in the suit premises. He had taken the
said premises on rent basis, prior to 40 years and since
then the petitioners and Tuljaram Pardeshi were residing
in the suit premises. Tuljaram Pardeshi died on
15.5.1989. Raju, Sanjay, Shyam, Deepak, Ganesh and Sushil
are the sons of Tuljaram Pardeshi. They without giving
intimation to the present petitioners got prepared rent
receipt in the name of Sanjay. The opponent had filed the
Suit No.951 of 1991 for possession of the suit premises
against the said Sanjay, which was decreed and the appeal
preferred by Sanjay was also dismissed. After receipt of
notice under Order 21, Rule 22 of C.P.C. in R.D.No.152 of
2004, the present petitioners allegedly came to know about
the said decree and appeal in that case filed by Sanjay.
According to the petitioners they were not party to the
suit and appeal and therefore, decree passed in the said
proceedings were not binding upon them and hence according
to them the decree passed in Suit No.951 of 1991 and order
passed in appeal were not binding on them and execution
proceedings filed on the basis of those decree were not
binding upon them and hence the application came to be
filed in the execution court.
