Objections raised by a third party resisting the execution of a decree are maintainable even without the decree-holder moving an application under Order 21, Rule 97 (1), C. P. C.

( 1 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for respondents 1 to 8 have been heard at length. The petition is being finally disposed of at the admission stage.

( 2 ) SHORT question raised in this petition is whether without the decree-holder moving an application, under Orders 21, Rule 97 (1), C. P. C. objections raised by the third party resisting the execution of the decree, can be heard or not.

( 3 ) BRIEF facts of the case are that respondents 3 and 4, Sita Ram and Ram Das, had obtained a decree for possession in respect of certain immovable properties against respondents 5 to 8. While the decree was put in execution the petitioners alleged to be in possession of the part of the land under the decree. The petitioners were not party to the suit and there was no decree against them. The decree-holders moved an application under Order 21, Rule 35, C. P. C. before the executing Court for getting the possession delivered with the aid of the police. The petitioners filed objections under Order 21, Rule 97, C. P. C. The said objections were not entertained by the executing Court on the ground that the third party has no right to make an application resisting the execution of the decree and the third party can file a suit. On revision being filed against the order of the executing Court, the revisional Court dismissed the same on the ground that unless the decree-holder moves an application under Order 21, Rule 97, C. P. C. for delivery of possession after removal of obstruction by third party, objections filed by the third party are not maintainable.

( 4 ) THESE two orders of the executing Court as well as the revisional Court are challenged in this writ petition and a prayer to quash the same has been made.

( 5 ) THE dispute raised in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the decisions of the Supreme Court in Brahmdeo Choudhary v. Rishikesh Prasad Jaiswal, 1997 (2) All WC 1003 : (AIR 1997 SC 856) and Bhanwar Lal v. Satyanarain, (1995) 1 SCC 6. In Brahmdeo Choudharys case the Apex Court had held as follows :-"a conjoint reading of Order 21, Rules 97, 98, 99 and 101 projects the following picture : (1) If a decree-holder is resisted or obstructed in execution of the decree for possession with the result that the decree for possession could not be executed in the normal manner by obtaining warrant for possession under Order 21, Rule 35, then the decree-holder has to move an application under Order 21, Rule 97 for removal of such obstruction and after hearing the decree-holder and the obstructionist, the Court can pass appropriate orders after adjudicating upon the controversy between the parties as enjoined by Order 21, Rule 97, sub-rule (2) read with Order 21, Rule 98. It is obvious that after such adjudication, if it is found that the resistance or obstruction was occasioned without just cause by the judgment-debtor or by some other person at his instigation or on his behalf, then such obstruction or resistance would be removed as per Order 21, Rule 98, sub-rule (2) and the decree-holder would be permitted to be put in possession. Even in such an eventuality, the order passed would be treated as a decree under Order 21, Rule 101 and no separate suit would lie against such order meaning thereby that only remedy would be to prefer an appeal before the appropriate appellate Court against such decree. (2) If for any reason, a stranger to the decree is already dispossessed of the suit property relating to which he claims any right, title or interest before his getting any opportunity to resist or offer obstruction on spot on account of his absence from the place or for any other valid reason then his remedy would lie in filing an application under Order 21, Rule 99, C. P. C. claiming that his dispossession was illegal and that possession deserves to be restored to him. If such an application is allowed after adjudication, then as enjoined by Order 21, Rule 98, sub-rule (1), C. P. C. the Execu