GIRIJAMBIKA Vs. GEORGE SELVARAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL these four Civil Revision Petitions arise from e. P. 65 of 2001 in O. S. 233 of 1982 on the file of the Principal Munsiff's Court, nedumangad. These four revisions are filed against the orders passed by the executing Court dismissing E. A. Nos. 224, 225, 226 and 227 of 2003 filed by strangers to the decree. C. R. P. 325 of 2003 is filed by the petitioner in e. A. 225 of 2002, C. R. P. 570 of 2003 is filed by the petitioner in E. A. 226 of 2002, C. R. P. 1181 of 2003 is filed by the petitioner in E. A. 227 of 2002 and c. R. P. 1190 of 2003 is filed by the petitioner in E. A. 224 of 2002.

(2.) THE suit was for recovery of property. THE decree holder filed Execution Petition for delivery. During execution proceedings the petitioners in these four Civil Revision Petitions filed four E. As. claiming right, title and possession over the properties. THE executing Court dismissed all the petitions on the sole ground that the petitioners have no right to resist delivery in view of the clear language contained in O. XXI, R. 102 of the code of Civil Procedure. THEy have filed these four revisions challenging those orders.

(3.) THE learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners in all these Civil Revision Petitions has argued that in Babulal's case (supra) the Supreme Court had not considered the remedy available to a person against whom an order under R. 102 of O. XXI was passed by the Executing court. It is argued that the Supreme Court was considering the effect of an order passed under O. XXI, Rr. 35 (3), 97 and 98 and not remedy available to a person aggrieved by an order passed under R. 102. It is argued that under R. 103 of O. XXI, the orders under O. XXI, Rr. 97, 98 and 100 alone are given the effect of a decree and R. 103 does not cover an order passed under R. 102 of O. XXI. It is argued that in Bhanwar Lal's case (supra) the Supreme Court considered rr. 35 (3) and 97 of O. XXI and not the remedy available to a person against whom an order under R. 102 was passed. It is also argued that there is a specific finding to the effect that the Apex Court was not considering the procedure to be followed and the question to be determined under O. XXI, Rr. 98 to 102. My attention was drawn to the following passage:? "the procedure has been provided in Rr. 98 to 103. We are not, at present, concerned with the question relating to the procedure to be followed and question to be determined under O. XXI, Rr. 98 to 102". It was argued that the Supreme Court had no occasion to consider R. 102 in Babulal's case. I find it very difficult to agree with the above submission. In Babulal's case the Supreme Court had specifically found that an order passed under R. 102 is having the force of a decree.