A LAKSHMI Vs. PYDAH SUBRAHMANYA JAGANNADHA SATYA PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner who is a third party to the proceedings filed E. A No. 611 of 2007 in E. P No. 692 of 2002 in O. S No. 910 of 198 heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents and perused the order passed by thi a three judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Silverline Forum Pvt. Ltd. v. Rajiv Trust, AIR 1998 SC 1754 while interpreting Order 21 Rule 97 CPC ". . . it is difficult to agree with the High Court that resistance or obstructions made by a third party to the decree of execu it is true that R. 99 of O. 21 is not available to any person until he is dispossessed of immovable property by the decree-ho when a decree-holder complains of resistance to the execution of a decree it is incumbent on the execution Court to adjudicat the words "all questions arising between the parties to a proceeding on an application under Rule 97" would envelop only such a two judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Shreenath v. Rajesh, AIR 1998 SC 1827 after considering the provisions under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC he in view of the same, the Executing Court is not justified in rejecting the claim of the appellant solely basing upon the obse the civil revision petition is accordingly allowed and the Executing Court is directed to receive the objections of the petit