(1.) Heard Sri Y.K. Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A.K. Narayana, who has filed his power on behalf of Respondent No.1. Let the power be taken on record.
(2.) According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner was not a party in Suit No.458 of 2003 which was decreed on 27.05.2008. He submits that the plaintiff of the suit put the decree in execution being Execution Case No.1 of 2008 (Bhagwat Das Vs. Om Prakash). In the said execution case, one Avinash obstructed the decree and in light of the provision of Order 21, Rule 97 C.P.C. his objection was decided and rejected. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner namely Achal Sharma was in possession of the property in question and for showing his possession he referred to extract of khatauni 1414 to 1419 F and filed application resisting the decree. The said application was considered by the Trial Court as an application under Order 21, Rule 97 C.P.C. and has been rejected by the impugned order dated 07.09.2013 as also the revision filed there against being Revision No.Nil of 2013 (Achal Sharma Vs. Amit Pachauri & others) was rejected.
(3.) Learned counsel states that the impugned orders have failed to consider the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Tanzeem-e-Sufia Vs. Bibi Haliman and others reported in AIR 2002 SC 3083 wherein it was held that a third party claiming independent rights can resist the decree for possession and he would be entitled to be heard under Order 21, Rule 97 C.P.C. and refusal of hearing on the ground that the objector should file civil suit or file an objection under Order 21, Rule 99 is not proper. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner has been denied adjudication on his application under Order 21, Rule 97 C.P.C. and no inquiry or adjudication has been done regarding the right of the petitioner to protect his possession against the decree.