The objections raised by third parties in execution proceedings must fall within the scope of the proceedings under Order 21 Rules 97 to 103 of the CPC and cannot be decided in execution proceedings if they are not relatable to these rules.

JUDGMENT

MANISH PITALE,J.

1. This Writ Petition arises out of order dtd. 29/12/2011 passed by the Court of Civil Judge Senior Division, Panaji (hereinafter referred to as the Executing Court) in an application for execution filed by respondent Nos. 1 to 3 (Original decree holders), whereby an application filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 7 and 8 (Objectors) to the execution proceedings was allowed and it was directed that an enquiry under Order 21 Rule 101 of the Code of Civil Procedure (C.P.C.) would be undertaken. The petitioner and proforma respondent nos. 4, 5 and 6 are the original judgment debtors, who claim that the aforesaid application of the Objectors was not maintainable, which the Executing Court failed to appreciate.

2. Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 filed suit for recovery of possession and injunction against the petitioner and proforma respondent nos. 4 to 6, claiming that they were lawful co-owners of the suit property which they had inherited. They claimed that the petitioner and proforma respondent nos. 4 to 6 i.e. the original defendants had disturbed their possession in the suit property by cutting some trees therein, due to which a police complaint was filed and eventually the said suit was filed seeking possession of the share of respondent Nos. 1 to 3 in the property. The petitioner and proforma respondent nos. 4 to 6 resisted the prayers made on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 3. The Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, framed issues and the matter went to trial.

3. By the judgment and order dtd. 12/06/1986, the aforesaid Court found that respondent Nos. 1 to 3 were able to prove that the suit property was half of the whole property described as "Quarta Parte do predio Santiago Pintado". It was also held that the other half of the said property belonged to one Maria Tereza Volifred Cortez. On the basis of the findings rendered in the judgment, it was held that respondent Nos. 1 to 3 were entitled for damages of Rs.9500.00 and the petitioner and proforma respondent nos. 4 to 6 were directed to restore possession of the suit property i.e. half of the property called "Quarta Parte do predio Santiago Pintado" to the said respondent nos. 1 to 3.

4. The said decree was put to execution by respondent Nos. 1 to 3. In these proceedings respondent Nos. 1 to 3 filed an application stating that the suit property be partitioned by metes and bounds, suggesting that a Commissioner should be appointed to divide the property in two equal halves, so that they could be put in possession of half the property. A Commissioner was appointed, who submitted his report suggesting the manner in which the property could be partitioned in two halves, so that half share could be recovered for respondent Nos. 1 to 3.

5. The said order was challenged before this Court in Writ Petition No. 532 of 2009 and the petition was finally disposed of in terms of minutes of order agreed between the parties. As per the said agreement between the parties, the order of the Executing Court was modified and it was directed that plot Nos. (a), (b), (c) and (d) would be demarcated in the entire property and that the Executing Court would allot to respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and the petitioner and proforma respondent nos. 4 to 6 plots (a) and (b) and plots (c) and (d) by draw of lots.

6. At this stage respondent Nos. 7 and 8 filed an objection in the said execution proceedings, claiming that they were the heirs of Maria Tereza Volifred Cortez and they were entitled to object to the manner in which the decree was being executed. It was submitted that as they were legal heirs of the said Maria Tereza Volifred Cortez and the judgment and decree passed in favour of respondent Nos. 1 to 3 itself recorded that half the property belonged to the said predecessor of respondent Nos. 7 and 8, they were entitled to raise objections.

7. It was submitted that when there was no prayer in the plaint filed by respondent Nos. 1 to 3 for partition of the suit property and the judgment