A person other than the judgment-debtor cannot file an objection petition under R.97 of O.21 on the ground that he is not liable to ejectment in execution of a decree obtained by the decree-holder against the judgment-debtor.

RAJENDRA NATH MITTAL, J.

1. This revision petition has been filed by the objector against the order of the Subordinate Judge, 1st Class, Jullundur, dt. 25th Mar. 1982.

2. Briefly, the facts are that Smt. Maya Wati obtained an order of ejectment from the property in dispute against Mohan Lal on 30th April, 1980. She filed an execution application against the judgment-debtor in which warrant of possession was ordered to be issued. While the execution proceedings were pending, the objector, through its President, filed two objection petitions inter alia on the ground that it was in possession of the property since long in its own right as owner and, therefore, was not bound by the order of ejectment obtained by the decree-holder. The decree-holder contested the objection petitions and inter alia pleaded that the objections were not maintainable by the objector and that these were got filed by Mohan Lal judgment-debtor through his relations who were members of the society. It was also pleaded that earlier on Khushi Ram a relation of Mohan Lal, judgment-debtor filed a civil suit claiming himself to be the owner in possession of the property and the same had been dismissed.

3. On the pleadings of the parties, three issues were framed. Later, an issue with regard to the maintainability of the objection petitions, which is as follows, was framed and tried as a preliminary issue : -

"Whether the objection petitions are maintainable? OPO"

The Court came to the conclusion that the objection petitions were not maintainable by the objector. Consequently, it dismissed the objection petitions. The learned Motion Bench, finding some divergence of opinion, admitted the revision petition to a Division Bench. That is how the matter is listed before us.

4. The question that requires determination is whether any person other than the judgment-debtor can file an objection petition under R.97 of O.21 on the ground that he is not liable to ejectment in execution of a decree obtained by a decree-holder against the judgment-debtor.

In order to determine the question, it will be necessary to read O.21, Rr.97 and 99, of Civil P.C. (hereinafter referred to as the Code), which are as under : - "97. Resistance or obstruction to possession of immovable property.- (1) Where the holder of a decree for the possession of immovable property or the purchaser of any such property sold in execution of a decree is resisted or obstructed by any person in obtaining possession of the property, he may make an application to the Court complaining of such resistance or obstruction.

(2) Where any application is made under sub-rule (1), the Court shall proceed to adjudicate upon the application in accordance with the provisions herein contained.

99. Dispossession by decree-holder or purchaser- (1) Where any person other than the judgment-debtor is dispossessed of immovable property by the holder of a decree for the possession of such property or, where such property has been sold in execution of a decree, by the purchaser thereof, he may, make an application to the Court complaining of such dispossession.

(2) Where any such application is made, the Court shall proceed to adjudicate upon the application in accordance with the provisions herein contained."

From a bare reading of the aforesaid Rules, it is clear that if a decree-holder is resisted or obstructed by any person in obtaining possession of the property, he can make an application under R.97 complaining of the resistance or obstruction. The person causing resistance or obstruction is not entitled under that rule to make an application. However, if the decree-holder makes the necessary application, the person causing the resistance or obstruction is entitled to defend his conduct. In other words at that stage he is entitled to be in defensive but cannot take an offensive step. In case he wants to take such a step he can do so under R.99 but after surrendering possession. The Rule has been framed to protect the