The word 'possession' in O. 21, Rr. 100 and 101 refers to actual possession, and the purpose of the inquiry is to determine if the applicant was in possession at the time of the inquiry.

ORDER :- This revision application it directed against the order of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Panaji, dated February 23, 1976. The applicant is the landlord of the judgment-debtor and the respondents are the decree-holders.

2. The applicant made an application under O. 21, Rr. 100 and 101, C. P. C. on the ground that he was in possession of the suit property and the decree-holders had dispossessed him. The application was dismissed giving rise to this revision application.

3. It is contended by Shri Joshi that the possession spoken of by Rr. 100 and 101 is juridical possession and not actual possession. He relies on Pera Naidu v. Soundaravalli Ammal, AIR 1954 Mad 516 whereto it was held otherwise.

4. The words -"on his own account or on account of some person other than the judgment-debtor" occurring in R. 101 of O. 21 give a clear indication that the word "possession" occurring in Rr. 100 and 101 is actual possession and not constructive possession.

5. For different reasons the High Court of Madras in the supra mentioned case has held that the object of O. 21, Rr. 100 and 101 is to sustain the possession of persons who were not parties to the suit and who are in possession on their own account or on behalf of others who are not judgment-debtors. The scope of the inquiry under these rules is limited to finding whether the applicant was in possession at the time of the liberty (sic). If that is found, he is to be restored back to possession. That clearly indicates, the Madras High Court held, that what the court is concerned with is actual possession and that any question of juridical possession would be foreign to the nature and purpose of the inquiry under the said rules.

6. In the circumstances the revision application is dismissed with costs.

Revision petition dismissed.