Point of Law: Not only a decree-holder or a purchaser but also a third party can complain of resistance and obstruction to the decree for execution and this aspect is clear from the caption "Resistance to delivery of possession to decree-holder or purchaser" as subsumed in Order XXI Rule 97 to 106 and the term "any person" as contained in Rule 97. Further Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 97 makes it incumbent on the Court to proceed to adjudicate upon such complain.

JUDGMENT :

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the respondent nos.1. None appears on behalf of the other respondents on call.

2. This is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure challenging the order dated 07.11.2016 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Hailakandi in Misc. Case No.3/2015 arising out of Title Execution Case No.7/2013 whereby the learned Executing Court dismissed the petition filed by the petitioners under Order XXI Rule 98, 99, 100 and 101 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 47 and 151 of the said Code vide the order impugned in the instant proceedings.

3. Upon perusal of the impugned order dated 07.11.2016 and taking into consideration that the instant proceedings has come up for admission, having heard the learned counsel present before me, I am of the opinion that the instant proceedings can be disposed of at this stage.

4. The impugned order emanates from an application filed by the petitioners under Order XXI Rule 98, 99, 100 and 101 read with Section 47 and 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 whereby the basic claim of the petitioners was adjudication of their right, title, interest and possession over the suit land which was decreed by the Trial Court in favour of the respondent no.1 on 27.03.2017 in Title Suit No.18/1999 and on the basis of which Title Execution Case No.7/2013 was filed. Before further going into the legality of the order impugned, it would be necessary to look into the provisions of the Order XXI Rule 97 to 103 of the Code of Civil Procedure which has a vital bearing to the adjudication of the instant lis.

5. Order XXI Rule 97 to 103 of the Code of Civil Procedure were substantially amended by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1976. As per the unamended Rule 101, a person who was a bonafide claimant and who satisfied that he was in possession of the suit property on his account or on account of another other than the judgment-debtor could have been put in possession of the suit property on an application under Rule 100 and 101. Now after the amendment carried out by the Amending Act of 1976, the person who seeks to be restored back in possession has not only to prove that the person was in bonafide possession but also that he has to prove his right, title or interest in respect to the suit property. In other words what was required to be adjudicated in a suit under the unamended Rule 103 is now to be adjudicated in Rule 101 pursuant to the Amending Act of 1976. Similarly the right to file a suit under the unamended Rule 103 has been taken away by amendments made to both Rule 101 and 103 by the Amending Act of 1976 and by necessary implication the legislature relegated the parties to an adjudication of right, title or interest in the immovable property under execution and finality has been accorded to it for which now the orders passed on the application under Rule 98 and 100 are to be treated as decrees. The said amendments brought by the Amending Act of 1976 are therefore with the objective to put an end to the protraction of the execution and to shorten the litigation between the parties or persons claiming right, title and interest in the immovable property in execution.

6. A perusal of the Rule 97 of Order XXI shows that not only a decree-holder or a purchaser but also a third party can complain of resistance and obstruction to the decree for execution and this aspect is clear from the caption “Resistance to delivery of possession to decree-holder or purchaser” as subsumed in Order XXI Rule 97 to 106 and the term “any person” as contained in Rule 97. Further Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 97 makes it incumbent on the Court to proceed to adjudicate upon such complaint in accordance with the procedure laid down. In this regard reference can be made to the judgments rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Silverline Forum Pvt. Ltd vs . Rajiv Trust and Another reported in (1998) 3 SC