1. The instant petition is against the order dated 12.02.2018 whereby an application under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC preferred by the decree holder was allowed. It was further directed that the possession of the disputed suit property as per the order dated 20.12.2002 be given to the decree holder in a result the objection raised by the petitioner against execution of decree was dismissed.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that a decree for ejectment was granted in a civil Suit No. 20-A/2002 in respect of the suit property wherein the petitioner was in possession. It is contended that petitioners were not made a party in the said suit and the decree for possession was obtained by the respondent Chandrabhan Kriplani by suppression of fact. He would further submit that when the resistance was made in the execution of decree and subsequently an application preferred under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC was preferred by the decree holder, the executing Court without any sufficient reason has allowed the application and ordered dispossession of the petitioner. He would further submit that the petitioner is in possession of the suit property since more than 30 years back and their title has become absolute which was held adversely to the true owner. Consequently, the petitioner could not have been dispossessed from the suit property and the order dated 12.02.2018 is liable to be set aside.

3. Perused the order and the documents. The facts as would reveal that initially a suit was filed by Chandrabhan Kriplani against Jairamdas Dengwani (since deceased) for ejectment and arrears of rent & damages. The said civil suit was numbered as 20-A/2002 and was decided and decreed on 20.12.2002. A decree of ejectment was passed against Jairamdas Dengwani (since deceased). No appeal was preferred against such judgment and decree by the then judgment debtor and it attained the finality. Eventually, when execution was set into motion to obtain the possession, it was found that Jairamdas Dengwani, the judgment debtor was not residing in the disputed land and instead Revati Bai Janghel & others were found in possession of the suit land. Consequently, Revati Bai Janghel & others, the respondents herein refused to deliver the possession to the baileef of Court and decree holder and started resisting. In a result decree dated 20.12.2002 could not be executed. Subsequently, an application was preferred by Revati Bai Janghel & others before the 1st Additional Civil Judge, Class-I, Raipur under Section 94 (5) read with Section 151 of the CPC. The said application was rejected on the ground that the petitioners therein had failed to produce any document regarding possession of the land and the possession warrant was again ordered for. Against such rejection of the application, the petitioner herein had preferred a writ petition which was bearing WP No.2131/2005. In such writ petition, this Court by an order dated 15.06.2005 observed that the executing Court ought to have enquired into the possession of the petitioners in accordance with Order 21 Rule 97 CPC and Order 21 Rule 101 CPC and the decree of possession was thereafter stayed. As an fall out of such observation, an application was preferred by the decree holder under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC before the executing Court. The executing Court after adjudication has passed an order of ejectment by dismissing the objection raised by these petitioners, hence, this petition.

4. Perused the records. Order 21 Rule 97 to 103 CPC deals with resistance or obstruction to possession to the holder of a decree for possession or the purchaser of any such property sold in execution of a decree and determination of lis there off. It empowers such a person to file an application to the Court complaining of such resistance or obstruction and requires the Court under sub-rule (2) of Rule 97 of Order 21 of CPC to adjudicate upon the application in accordance with the provisions provided therein.

5. Rule 99 deals with disp