The Court emphasized that an application should not be rejected solely based on quoting the wrong provision of law and directed the lower court to consider the application under the correct provision and dispose it off after complying with the prescribed procedure.

( 1 ) THE appellant in this appeal is the applicant in Execution Case No. 36 of 1995 on the file of the Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Judicial magistrate First Class, Channapatna (hereinafter referred to as 'civil judge' ). In this appeal, he has called in question the correctness of the order dated 21st June, 1997 made in Execution Case No. 36 of 1995 by the Civil Judge.

( 2 ) FEW facts which may be relevant for disposal of this appeal may be stated as hereunder.

( 3 ) THE 2nd respondent-decree holder had obtained the decree against the 1st respondent-judgment debtor in Original Suit No. 112 of 1987 on the file of the Court of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Channapatna for a declaration possession in respect of property bearing No. 90/a. It is the case of the appellant that while executing the said decree in Execution no. 36 of 1995, the 2nd respondent in collusion with Court Ameen, in excess of the terms of the decree, dispossessed the appellant from the property which is the subject-matter of dispute in this appeal. Aggrieved by the said dispossession, the appellant had filed an application under order 21, Rule 97 of the Civil Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as the 'code') seeking for redelivery of the possession of the property in respect of which the appellant has been dispossessed. The application filed by the appellant for dispossession was resisted by the 2nd respondent-decree holder. The Civil Judge in the impugned order rejected the application of the appellant on the ground that the appellant has failed to establish that he has been dispossessed from the property in question illegally in execution of the decree obtained by the 2nd respondent-decree holder.

( 4 ) SRI G. A. Srikantegowda, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, challenging the impugned order submitted that since the impugned order has been passed without conducting an enquiry as prescribed under Rules 100 and 101 of Order 21 of the Code, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. In support of his submission, the learned Counsel also relied upon the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of V. K. Rama Setty v A. Gopinath1. He further submitted that though the application was filed under Order 21, Rule 97 of the Code, since the Court has the power to grant the relief under Order 21, Rule 99 of the Code. the error in not mentioning the correct provision of law should not be made as a ground to deny the relief sought for by the appellant. However, learned Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent- decree holder strongly supported the impugned order. He pointed out that since the application was filed under Order 21, Rule 97 of the Code; and since Order 21, Rule 97 of the Code has no application, the order impugned is no liable to be interfered with by this Court. He further pointed out that since it is the case of the appellant that he has been dispossessed of the property which is not the subject-matter of decree and in excess of the decree, even the provisions contained in Rule 99 of order 21 has no application. According to him, an application under rule 99, Order 21 could be filed only in cases where an obstructer is dispossessed of the property which is the subject-matter of decree.

( 5 ) IN the light of the rival contentions advanced by the learned Counsels appearing for the parties, the only question that would arise for consideration is as to whether the impugned order is liable to be interfered with by this Court?

( 6 ) NO doubt, the application was filed under Order 21, Rule 97 of the code. However, Rule 99 of Order 21 of the Code provides for an application being filed by a person other than the judgment-debtor who is dispossessed of immovable property by a holder of decree for possession of such property; and on such application being made, the Court is required to adjudicate upon the application. It is useful to refer to Rule 99 of Order 21 of the Code which reads as hereunder:"rule 99.