The executing court has the power to dismiss a claim or objection summarily under the proviso to O. XXI, R. 58 (1) of the CPC, even if it has registered the claim or objection and issued notices to the opposite party, if it is satisfied that the claim or objection was designedly or unnecessarily delayed.

1. This Civil Revision application is directed against an order dated the 10th April, 1976, of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Dhanbad, summarily dismissing the application of the petitioner under O. XXI, R. 58 of the Civil P. C. (hereinafter referred to as the Code), without any investigation, on the ground that the objection was at the instance of the son of the judgment-debtor, and designedly filed to delay the delivery of possession and was a belated one.

2. Necessary facts for the disposal of this application may shortly be stated. The Opposite Party brought a suit, (Title Suit No. 505 of 1962) for eviction of the defendants, who were (i) Bhagwati Prasad Sharma, (ii) Lajpat Rai Seth, and (iii) Jawahar Lall Seth, from a house in the Town of Jharia, under the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1948, on the ground of personal necessity, as well as breach of the terms of the tenancy and arrears of rent. The allegation was that Lajpat Rai Seth was the tenant of the house in question and the other two defendants were sub-lessees of Lajpat Rai Seth (Defendant No. 2). These three defendants were impleaded as Opposite party in this Civil revision application, but their names were subsequently penned through. It may be mentioned that the petitioner in this civil revision application is the son of Lajpat Rai Seth.

3. The suit was decreed by the trial court, but that decree was reversed in appeal by the lower appellate court. Against that decision, Second Appeal No. 813 of 1966 was filed in this Court and the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court were set aside and those of the trial court restored on the 26th Nov. 1968. Against the decision of the High Court, an application for Special Leave to appeal was rejected by the Supreme Court of India on the 21st Aug. 1969. In the meantime, on the 20th Dec. 1968, the plaintiff-decree-holder levied execution of the decree in Execution Case No. 153 of 1968, for delivery of possession of the premises in question. The judgment-debtors filed a number of miscellaneous judicial cases, some of them being Miscellaneous Judicial Case No. 43 of 1969, and Miscellaneous Judicial Case No. 89 of 1969. Thereafter, an application was also filed by judgment-debtor Jawahar Lall Seth, full brother of Lajpat Rai Seth, under O. IX, R. 13, of the Code, for setting aside the ex parte decree passed against him in Title Suit No. 505 of 1962, which was allowed on the 16th Feb. 1973. This order of the court below was subsequently set aside by this Court in Civil Revision No. 247 of 1973, by an order dated the 21st April, 1975. Thereafter, on the 25th Nov. 1975, a writ of delivery of possession was issued. Against that order an appeal was taken to the District Judge and an order for stay of the delivery of possession was obtained on the 27th Nov. 1975, which, however, was vacated on the 12th March, 1976. It was on this date that the present application under O. XXI, R. 58, read with S. 151, of the Code was filed by the present petitioner, the son of the judgment-debtor, Lajpat Rai Seth,

4. The case of the present petitioner in his objection petition under 0. XXI, R. 58, of the Code was that the house in question was purchased by one Gaya Prasad Singh, father of the decree-holder on behalf of his joint family, consisting of himself and his brother, Mahabir Pd. Singh, by a registered deed of sale dated the 9th Dec. 1948. Thereafter, Gave Prasad Singh and Mahabir Prasad Singh died, leaving behind their sons in the state of jointness. The petitioners case is that by mutual and amicable settlement the eastern portion, which consists of the suit premises, fell to the share of the son of the said Mahabir Prasad Singh and that the western portion fell to the share of the decree-holder, son of the said Gaya Prasad Singh. The petitioners case further is that he was inducted as a tenant on a monthly rental of Rs. 110.00 by Ambika Prasad Singh, son of Mahabir Prasad Singh, on the suit pr