DAGU Vs. SUKHIRAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ORDINARILY this Court does not interfere in revision with an order passed under Order 21, Rule 100, Civil Procedure Code because the remedy of a regular suit to the aggrieved party is there. However, there are exceptional circumstances in this case, in particular a similar revision has been allowed by Bhave, J. (Chakradhar v. Ghasiram), C.R. No. 186 of 1972.

(2.) THE questions for determination in this revision are two. The suit is whether the application under Order 21, Rule 100, C.P.C. which was made by non -applicant -objectors, was competent. Shri Dharmadhikari's objection is that in the application, the objectors themselves alleged that they were in possession. That being so, the application under Order 21, Rule 100, C.P.C., is not competent That Rule contemplates an objection when the objector "has been dispossessed". It follows that an objector, who is in possession and has not been dispossessed, cannot make an application under Order 21 Rule 100. The expression "has been dispossessed" refers to actual possession and not to a symbolic possession. On this basis, Bhave, J., allowed Civil Revision No 186 of 1972 (supra).

(3.) IN the present case, the objectors had, in the alternative, prayed for the relief of possession, in case it was found that possession had been delivered to the non -applicants. Therefore, the decision in Jagannath v. Fasiuddin (supra) squarely applies to the present case and it must be said that the application under Order 21, Rule 100 C.P.C., was competant.