Hon’ble Sanjay Misra, J.—Heard Sri Keshari Nath Tripathi, learned senior counsel assisted by Sri C.P. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Rahul Sahai alongwith Sri S.K. Dubey, learned counsel for the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3.

2. It is informed by learned counsel for the parties that the Respondent Nos. 4 to 8 were the judgment debtor and are as such not affected by any order passed in this writ petition hence with consent of learned counsels this writ petition is being decided today itself.

3. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 24.8.2013 passed in Execution Case No. 15 of 1998 arising out of the Original Suit No. 349 of 1983 whereby the Executing Court has issued dakhal parwana with police force as also the order dated 18.9.2013 whereby the application paper No. 6-C filed by the petitioners in proceedings under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC for grant of interim protection has been refused as also the order dated 24.9.2013 passed by the Executing Court in Misc. Case No. RM-100 of 2013 also arising out of the Execution Case No. 15 of 1998 whereby the application 21-C-2 made by the petitioners for permission to lead oral evidence in their support has been rejected.

4. According to Sri Tripathi, learned senior counsel, the petitioners were not party in Original Suit No. 349 of 1983 which was decreed in 1986. The appeal was dismissed in 1994 and the S.L.P. there against was also dismissed on 12.8.1996. He submits that the decree holder filed Execution Case No. 15 of 1998 which was subsequently dismissed for default on 13.1.2000 but restored in the year 2012. The petitioners claimed to be in possession over the property in question by virtue of it being let out to them on 15.9.1998 by the then decree holder. When the decree was being executed after the execution case had been restored in the year 2012 the petitioners who claimed to be tenants of the premises in question obstructed the decree under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC and the Amin report obtained by the Executing Court indicated that the petitioners are in possession over the property in question.

5. Learned counsel states that alongwith the application under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC the petitioners had made the application for grant of interim injunction against their dispossession which application 6-C was rejected by the impugned order on 18.9.2013 and their application paper No. 21-C-2 to lead oral and documentary evidence has also been rejected by the impugned order dated 24.9.2013.

6. The sum and substance of the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that when an application under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC has been entertained by the Executing Court and the Amin Commission has reported that the petitioners are in possession thereof they cannot be summarily ejected in pursuance of the decree and an adjudication as contemplated under Order XXI Rule 98 CPC is to be done. The petitioners who are not the judgment-debtors cannot be first dispossessed in proceedings under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC and thereafter adjudication be done. He states that if that be a circumstance and the petitioners are dispossessed under Order XXI Rule 99 CPC without adjudication of their rights under Rule 98 of Order XXI CPC it shall be an illegal act because in case under adjudication it is found that the petitioners have a vested right as tenant of the property in question let out to them by the erstwhile decree holder they would be entitled to be put in possession again. He states that such a procedure does not have the sanction of law that the obstructor be dispossessed under Rule 99 and be repossessed after adjudication under Rule 98 of Order XXI CPC.

7. Sri Rahul Sahai, learned counsel for the respondent has contested the submissions and has submitted that the Executing Court is enjoined to adjudicate the rights of obstructor under Order XXI Rule 97 and 98 CPC. He states that the interim protection which was claimed by the petitioners by the application 6-C co