Point of Law : A person, including a stranger, could maintain a petition under Rule 97 of Order XXI and object and get adjudication when he sought to be dispossessed by the decree holder. The expression ^ny person' under sub-clause (1) Rule 97 include *all person. a person, including a stranger, could maintain a petition under Rule 97 of Order XXI and object and get adjudication when he sought to be dispossessed by the decree holder. The expression ^ny person' under sub-clause (1) Rule 97 include *all person.

JUDGMENT :

1. Order dated 04.05.2017, passed by the learned Civil Judge No. 1, Kamrup (M), in Misc. (J) Case No. 458/2014, arising out of Title Execution Case No. 04/2013, and order dated 04.05.2019, passed by the learned Civil Judge No. 1, Kamrup (M), Guwahati, in Misc. (J) Case No. 600/2017, arising out of Title Execution Case No. 04/2013, are impugned in this Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the petitioners, namely, Sri Kulendra Nath Kakati & Smt. Surabi Kakati.

It is to be mentioned here that vide impugned order dated 04.05.2017, the learned Civil Judge No. 1, Kamrup (M), Guwahati, had dismissed the petition filed under Section 47 and Order 21 Rule 97 and 101 of the Code of Civil Procedure and vide impugned order, dated 04.05.2019, the learned Civil Judge No. 1, Kamrup (M), Guwahati, had dismissed the petition filed by the petitioners under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for reviewing the order dated 04.05.2017.

2. The factual background leading to filing of the present petition is briefly stated as under :-

“The respondent, Sri Bhabesh Baruah, as plaintiff, has instituted Title Suit No. 87/2006 against the respondents. Tikendra Nath Kakati & Ors., and in the said Title Suit, the respondent, Sri Bhabesh Baruah, got a degree for a plot of land measuring 4 Kathas 2 Lechas covered by Kheraj Myadi Patta No. 81, 82 (Old), 138 (New), Dag No. 60 (Old)/60 (New). Thereafter, the respondent, Sri Bhabesh Baruah, filed a Title Execution Case No. 04/2013 before the learned Civil Judge No. 1, Kamrup (M), Guwahati and while the case was pending for execution, the respondent got executed a Deed of Sale for 3 Kathas 3 Lechas of land through the learned Civil Judge No. 1, Kamrup (M), Guwahati, on 27.11.2014, without modifying the decree dated 04.12.2012, which was for a plot of land measuring 4 Kathas 2 Lechas. Thereafter, the present petitioners, whose land also allegedly falls in the decreetal land, filed an application, before the learned Civil Judge No.1 , which is registered as Misc. (J) Case No. 458/2014, under Section 47 read with Rule 97 & 101 of Order 21 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure on 27.11.2014, apprehending that if the respondent proceed for execution of the decree for 4 Kathas 2 Lechas of land, then the remaining 19 Lechas of land of the petitioners would come into the decreetal land as the decree for 4 Kathas 2 Lechas of land remained in force. But, the learned Civil Judge No. 1, Kamrup (M), Guwahati, after hearing both the parties, dismissed the petition No. 458/2014, filed by the petitioners. Thereafter, the petitioners again filed one petition before the learned Civil Judge No. 1, Kamrup (M), Guwahati, under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, upon which, Misc. (J) Case No. 600/2017 has been registered and after hearing the parties, the learned Civil Judge No. 1, Kamrup (M), Guwahati, dismissed the same vide order dated 04.05.2019.

3. Being highly aggrieved, the petitioners approached this Court by filing the present Civil Revision Petition on the grounds:

(i) that, the learned Court below has failed to consider that in the said Execution Case, the land of the petitioners are involved;

(ii) that, the learned Court below failed to consider the fact that identification of boundaries of the suit land, as mentioned in the execution proceeding, is not correct as the land of the petitioners are also situated within the said boundaries;

(iii) that, the entire case required to be reopened on the ground that the petitioners have right to seek adjudication of their claim over the suit land as provided under Order 21 Rule 101 of the Code of Civil Procedure;

(iv) that, the learned Court below failed to consider the fact that the Executing Court cannot go beyond the decree and allowed the respondent to got part of the same executed;

(v) that, the execution of the Deed of Sale on 27.11.2014 at Guwahati by the