RAM PYARE Vs. SPECIAL JUDGE BASTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for respondents 1 to 8 have been heard at length. The petition is being finally disposed of at the admission stage.

(2.) Short question raised in this petition is whether without the decree-holder moving an application, under Orders 21, Rule 97(1), C.P.C. objections raised by the third party resisting the execution of the decree, can be heard or not.

(3.) Brief facts of the case are that respondents 3 and 4, Sita Ram and Ram Das, had obtained a decree for possession in respect of certain immovable properties against respondents 5 to 8. While the decree was put in execution the petitioners alleged to be in possession of the part of the land under the decree. The petitioners were not party to the suit and there was no decree against them. The decree-holders moved an application under Order 21, Rule 35, C.P.C. before the executing Court for getting the possession delivered with the aid of the police. The petitioners filed objections under Order 21, Rule 97, C.P.C. The said objections were not entertained by the executing Court on the ground that the third party has no right to make an application resisting the execution of the decree and the third party can file a suit. On revision being filed against the order of the executing Court, the revisional Court dismissed the same on the ground that unless the decree-holder moves an application under Order 21, Rule 97, C.P.C. for delivery of possession after removal of obstruction by third party, objections filed by the third party are not maintainable.