BHAKTI SUDHA PATTADAR Vs. MANORAMA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three revision petitions arise out of an order dated the 31st January, 1970, allowing Miscellaneous Case No. 21 of 1965 under Order XXI, Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') filed by opposite party No. 1 Smt. Manorama Devi and directing her to he put in possession of the properties sold. The objectors in the said Miscellaneous case are petitioners in the three civil revision applications. As the three petitions arise out of the same order, they have been heard together and this order will govern all of them.

(2.) Objector No. 11 in the aforesaid Miscellaneous case, Bhakti Sudha Pattadar, is the sole petitioner in Civil Revision No. 482 of 1970, while opposite party No. 10 in the Miscellaneous case, Gopal Das Munjal, is the sole petitioner in Civil Revision No. 669 of 1970. Opposite Parties Nos. 1 to 9 in the Miscellaneous case are petitioners in Civil Revision No. 485 of 1970.

(3.) Srimati Manorama Devi, opposite party No. 1, obtained a mortgage decree in Mortgage Suit No. 50/33 of 1959 against Kamini Kanta Pattadar on 25-2-1961 and executed the decree in Execution Case No. 56 of 1962, in the Court of the Special Subordinate Judge, Ranchi, and herself purchased the disputed lands, described in Schedules 'A' and 'B' of the sale certificate, in auction sale in the said execution case on 28-4-1964 and after obtaining a sale certificate in respect thereof, got a writ of delivery of possession issued from the Court. On the 21st February, 1965, the Nazir of the Court went with the writ of delivery of possession to effect delivery of possession. The Nazir could deliver possession in respect of plot No. 1122A and resistance to the delivery of possession was offered by twelve persons including the eleven petitioners in the three Civil Revision Petitions. The Nazir submitted a report dated 21-2-1965 to the Court regarding the resistance offered to the delivery of possession. Thereafter, on the 11th March, 1965, the decree-holder auction-purchaser, opposite party No. 1, filed a petition under Order XXI, Rule 97 of the Code complaining of resistance to delivery of possession by the aforesaid objectors and for investigation into the matter.