ORDER : This revision petition is directed against the order passed by the 2nd Additional District and Sessions Judge, D.K., Mangaluru in R.R.P No.9/2012. 2. Briefly stated the facts are that the father of the petitioner David Ammanna was the owner of the property measuring 27 cents including the petition property having purchased the same as per sale deed dated 12.01.1979, is the claim of the petitioner. It transpires that the father of the petitioner had executed a registered Settlement Deed dated 24.06.2010 settling 15 cents of land including Door No.3-27/3 petition property in favour of the petitioner. Respondent filed HRC petition before the 2nd Additional Civil Judge & JMFC, Mangalore, D.K. for eviction from the schedule property contending that the father of the petitioner was the tenant under him. It is contended by the petitioner that his father was not notified in the trial proceedings in HRC No.7/2011. HRC petition was allowed by the trial Court exparte and the respondent filed execution petition in Execution Case No.78/2012. In the said execution proceedings, petitioner filed an application under Order XXI Rule 97 of CPC. By order dated 10.08.2012, Executing Court observed that the remedy of the petitioner was to file a revision petition or the appeal independently challenging the order of eviction dated 17.02.2012 in HRC No.7/2011. No application filed under Order XXI Rule 97 of CPC was maintainable. Hence, petitioner filed Revision Petition in R.R.P.No.9/2012 challenging the judgment of the trial Court in HRC No.7/2011. The same came to be dismissed by order dated 17.12.2014 in R.R.P.No.9/2012. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner is before this Court. 3. The learned counsel Sri.Balakrishna Shastry, appearing for the petitioner would contend that the learned District Judge has proceeded wrongly on the premise that the petitioner has assailed the order dated 10.08.2012 passed by the 2nd Additional Civil Judge & JMFC., D.K., Mangaluru in Execution No.78/2012 where by the application filed by the petitioner under Order XXI Rule 97 of CPC was rejected. Infact, it was the order dated 17.02.2012 in HRC No.7/2011 which was challenged before the Revision Court. It was a wrong approach of the Revision Court in framing the points related to the execution case and not with the original decree passed in HRC No.7/2011. Infact, it was the order dated 17.02.2012 in HRC No.7/2011 which was challenged before the Revision Court. It was a wrong approach of the Revision Court in framing the points related to the execution case and not with the original decree passed in HRC No.7/2011. The two points framed by the Revisional Court being answered in the negative, Revision Petition came to be dismissed considering the grounds urged by the petitioner. It was the specific case of the petitioner that Godfred Ammanna, the father of the petitioner was not the tenant of this petition premises. The father of the petitioner was the owner of the entire property measuring 27 cents including the petition premises having purchased the same under a registered sale deed dated 12.01.1979 as per Document No.858/1978-79 before the SubRegistrar, Mangaluru City. The father of the petitioner had executed a registered Settlement Deed dated 24.06.2010 registered as Document No.1608/2010-11 settling 15 cents of the lands including the petition premises in favour of the petitioner. By virtue of the Settlement Deed, the petitioner became the owner of the petition premises. The katha certificate of the petition premises stands in the name of the petitioner describing the petitioner as the owner. Under these circumstances, no eviction order would have been passed by the HRC Court entertaining the petition filed by the respondent in HRC No.7/2011. The Revisional Court has referred Ex.P1 as lease deed and Ex.P2 as the legal notice. However, the said two documents, Exs.P1 and P2, are not genuine. The father of the petitioner is said to have executed those two documents at the age of 86 and 89 years respectively. Ex.P2 as could be verified from the documents clearly establishes that it is a letter said to have been addressed by the father of the petitioner and not a legal notice as observed by the learned Civil Judge in HRC No.7/2011. No notice was served on the father of the petitioner to contest the matter. It was only on the report filed by the bailiff of the Court, the Court proceeded to pass the judgment and decree exparte. The principles of natural justice demands fair hearing; No man should be condemned unheard. These vital aspects urged by the petitioner in the revision petition was not properly appreciated by the revision Court. It was only on the report filed by the bailiff of the Court, the Court proceeded to pass the judgment and decree exparte. The principles of natural justice demands fair hearing; No man should be condemned unheard. These vital aspects urged by the petitioner in the revision petition was not properly appreciated by the revision Court. On the other hand, the revision Court proceeded on the ground that the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Executing Court and dismissed the revision petition. Accordingly, he seeks for an opportunity to establish his claim over the petition schedule properties. 4. Per contra, Sri.Udaya Prakash, learned counsel appearing for the respondent justifying the impugned order would contend that four grounds were urged before the revision Court. Firstly, it was contended that the decree passed by the learned Civil Judge in HRC No.7/2011 is against a dead person which is a nullity. It was the case of the petitioner that the father of the petitioner died on 16.02.2012 and the judgment and order was passed by the learned Civil Judge in the HRC No.7/2011 on 17.02.2012. Thus, the said decree is a nullity in the eye of law. This arguments were addressed by the Revisional Court referring to Order XXII Rule 6 of CPC in as much as the case was heard and reserved for judgment on 13.02.2012 prior to the demise of the father of the petitioner. As such, the judgment and decree passed by the Court below in HRC No.7/2011 cannot be said to be a nullity. Secondly, it was urged that Exs.P1 and P2 are the concocted documents created by the respondent. The same having not been proved, the father of the petitioner having admitted the jural relationship of landlord and tenant between the respondent and the petitioner as per Exs.P1 and P2, the revision Court came to the conclusion that the arguments advanced at the hands of the petitioner cannot be adjudicated in the revision proceedings when the father of the petitioner himself had admitted the relationship. Thirdly, the revision Court observed that the petitioner herein had filed the original suit in O.S.No.259/2011 seeking an injunction order against the respondent in as much as the petition premises is concerned, when proceedings concerning the rights of the revision petitioner has already been initiated, he is at liberty to prosecute the same and prove his right of ownership. Thirdly, the revision Court observed that the petitioner herein had filed the original suit in O.S.No.259/2011 seeking an injunction order against the respondent in as much as the petition premises is concerned, when proceedings concerning the rights of the revision petitioner has already been initiated, he is at liberty to prosecute the same and prove his right of ownership. Fourthly, it was urged by the petitioner that the order passed by the Executing Court under Order XXI Rule 97 of CPC is wholly unsustainable and contrary to well established principles of law. No application filed by the petitioner would have been thrown out relegating the petitioner to approach the appellate Court or the revision Court. All these four grounds were urged by the petitioner before the Revision Court, which was profusely analysed and the same were negated after assigning the reasons. In such circumstances, the impugned judgment and order cannot be faulted with. Accordingly, he seeks for dismissal of the petition. 5. Having heard the rival submissions of the parties and perusing the material on record, it is evident that the judgment and decree passed by the Court below in HRC No.7/2011 is an exparte order. It is the specific contention of the petitioner that he is the owner of the petition premises to an extent of 15 cents including the petition property out of 27 cents purchased by his father through a registered sale deed on 12.01.1979, subsequently assigned to the share of this petitioner through a registered Settlement Deed dated 24.06.2010. It is apparent that the father of the petitioner at the time of execution of Exs.P1 and P2 was aged about 86 and 89 years. The Executing Court while disposing of the Execution Petition observed that the remedy available to the petitioner having not been resorted to, the application under Order XXI Rule 97 of CPC cannot be entertained. In such circumstances, the remedy available to the petitioner to challenge the exparte judgment and decree passed by the Court below in HRC No.7/2011 was either to file an appeal or revision as provided under Karnataka Rent Act, 1999. Accordingly, revision petition was filed. The Revision Court without considering the relief sought by the petitioner, to set aside the exparte judgment and decree passed in HRC No.7/2011, misrepresented itself that the revision was against the order passed by the Execution Court. Accordingly, revision petition was filed. The Revision Court without considering the relief sought by the petitioner, to set aside the exparte judgment and decree passed in HRC No.7/2011, misrepresented itself that the revision was against the order passed by the Execution Court. The points for consideration formed by the revision Court relates to the order passed by the execution Court. The power of the Execution Court is limited. The wider aspect relating to the setting aside exparte judgment and decree was not looked into by the Revision Court. The wrong approach of the revision Court considering the revision petition with narrower attitude resulted in miscarriage of justice. It is settled legal position that the party who knocks the door of the Court seeking justice deserves an opportunity to establish his right, title and interest over the property with adequate evidence, the same requires to be considered with the pragmatic approach. The factual matrix of the case narrated above, clearly establishes that there is a dispute of title over the petition properties between the petitioner and the respondent. The jural relationship of landlord and tenant is strongly disputed. To resolve the dispute, a fullfledged trial is necessary. Only on technicalities and prima facie considering the documents placed by the respondent before the Court below in HRC No.7/2011 to be genuine documents, no decision can be arrived at when the same is disputed by the petitioner. 6. Section 43(2)(b) of the Act provides that-where, in the opinion of the Court there is reason to suspect the genuine existence of the document of lease or the receipt or acknowledgement of payment of rent, the Court shall at once stop all further proceedings before it and direct the parties to approach a competent Court of civil jurisdiction for declaration of their rights. 7. Section 42 of the Act contemplates the Procedure to be followed by the Court which provides no order which prejudicially affects any person shall be made by the Court under this Act without giving him a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the order proposed to be made and until his objections, if any, and any evidence he may produce in support of the same have been considered by the Court. 8. Section 51 of the Act contemplates the Proceedings by or against the legal representatives. 8. Section 51 of the Act contemplates the Proceedings by or against the legal representatives. Any application made, appeal preferred, or proceeding taken under this Act by or against any person, may, in the event of his death be continued by or against his legal representative. Thus, it is clear that any proceedings by or against the legal representatives can be permissible in the event of the death of any of the party to the proceedings. 9. Undisputedly, the petitioner’s father died on 16.02.2012, a day prior to passing of the judgment by the Court below in HRC No.7/2011. Hence, the petitioner is competent to challenge the order passed in HRC.No.7/2011, as the legal representative of the deceased Mr. Godfred Ammanna. The dispute between the parties relates to execution of Exs.P.1, P.2 and the registered Sale Deed dated 12.01.1979 under which the petition properties are said to have been purchased by the father of the petitioner and the registered Settlement Deed dated 24.06.2010 said to have been executed by the father of the petitioner in favour of the petitioner assigning 15 cents of the land, including the petition properties. These are the questions to be resolved by adducing evidence. A fair trial is necessary, more particularly, in the light of Section 43 of the Act as aforesaid. O.S.No.259/2011, now pending before the III Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Mangaluru, Dakshina Kannada, is only relating to the relief of injunction wherein, neither the jural relationship of the landlord and tenant nor the title to the properties can be adjudicated. It is only after the trial, the Court can come to a conclusion that the matter requires to be adjudicated by a competent Court of civil jurisdiction. 10. Hence, without expressing any opinion on any of the documents now referred to by the parties, in the considered opinion of this Court, it will be appropriate to remand the matter to the Court of II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Mangaluru, Dakshina Kannada, to provide an opportunity to the petitioner to establish his case. Since both the parties are represented by their learned counsel, they are directed to appear before the Court below on 13.03.2017 without awaiting for any notice and shall receive further orders. The Court below shall dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible. Since both the parties are represented by their learned counsel, they are directed to appear before the Court below on 13.03.2017 without awaiting for any notice and shall receive further orders. The Court below shall dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible. It is needless to say that the respondent is at liberty to amend the cause-title by bringing the petitioner as the legal representative of the deceased i.e. the original respondent Mr. Godfred Ammanna. Ordered accordingly.