Hon’ble Pankaj Mithal, J.—Supplementary affidavit filed is taken on record.

2. Heard Sri Swapnil Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Anadi Krishna, learned counsel appearing for respondents Nos. 2/1 to 2/9.

3. The Original Suit No. 423 of 1972 (Rishi Kumar v. Ramesh Chandra Sharma and others) for mandatory injunction for possession of the property in dispute was decreed by appellate Court and the said decree attained finality. The decree holder has put the said decree in execution. The petitioners are resisting the execution of the decree on the ground that they are purchasers of the part of the suit land from Smt. Surya Mukhi, the wife of one of the judgment debtors who was not substituted in appeal. In short the claim of the petitioners is that they are persons other than the judgment debtors in possession of the property.

4. The petitioners applied under Order 21 Rule 97/99 CPC that the decree may not be executed against them as their rights have intervened and the decree is not binding upon them. In order to substantiate their claim they moved application to adduce evidence but the application has been rejected by the impugned order dated 24.8.2012 which has been upheld in revision vide order dated 10.10.2012.

5. The above two orders have been impugned in the present writ petition.

6. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that application under Order 21 Rule 97/99 CPC cannot be decided without allowing the parties opportunity to adduce evidence.

7. Sri Anadi Krishna, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 2/1 to 2/9 submits that the above application is actually an application under Order 21 Rule 99 CPC. The petitioners have earlier filed objections under Section 47 CPC and resisted the execution. The matter had come up to the High Court and it was remanded to the executing Court with the direction to decide them afresh considering as to whether petitioners are the representatives of one of the judgment debtors Ramesh Chandra Sharma or not.

8. In view of submissions made above, it is apparent that the petitioners objections alleged to have been filed under Section 47 CPC as well as an application under Order 21 Rule 99 CPC are pending consideration before the executing Court.

9. However, in this petition, the only controversy is as to whether petitioners can be permitted to lead evidence in support of the application under Order 21 Rule 99 CPC before the executing Court.

10. A composite reading of Rules 97-106 of Order 21 CPC reveals that wherever delivery of possession of an immovable property in execution is obstructed by any person, the decree holder is entitle to make a complain under Rule 97 and where a stranger to a decree is dispossessed he can make an application/objection under Rule 99 to get back the possession. In either of the case the executing Court is enjoined upon to decide the rights, title and interest of the obstructionist in the property in the execution itself and such adjudication/order is appealable as a decree under Rule 103 of Order 21 CPC.

11. The said rights are liable to be adjudicated before the obstructionist is dispossessed as has been held in various decisions of the Apex Court.[Bhanwar Lal v. Staya Narain, AIR 1995 SC 358; Babulal v. Raj Kumar and others, AIR 1996 SC 2050; Brhamdeo Chaudhary v. Rishikesh Prasad Jaiswal and another, AIR 1997 SC 856; Silverline Forum (P) Limited v. Rajiv Trust and another, AIR 1998 SC 1754 and Anwarbi v. Pramod D.A. Joshi, (2000) 10 SCC 405.]

12. The above rights of a person in an immovable property are valuable rights protected by Article 300 A of the Constitution of India. Therefore, no one can be deprived of the same without following the due procedure prescribed or in violation of the principles of natural justice unless their applicability is specifically dispensed with by any statue.

13. Previously, these rights were required to be adjudicated by a separate suit but with the amendment of the CPC w.e.f