A person claiming independent right, title or interest in the property can resist delivery of possession even by filing an objection under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC in the executing court itself and if that is done, the objection shall have to be determined by the executing court itself.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The instant petition has been preferred for the following main reliefs:-

"I. Issue order or direction setting aside the impugned Order dated 29.10.2021 passed by Executing Court in Execution Case No.1/2017 pending before the Opposite Party No.1, contained in Annexure No.1 to this petition;

II. Issue order or direction setting aside the impugned Order dated 11.11.2021 passed by Opposite Party No.1 in Execution Case No.1/2017 and every subsequent proceedings thereof contained in Annexure No.2 to this petition."

3. In brief, the petitioner, who was not a party to the SCC Suit No. 5 of 2014, claiming himself to be an owner in possession of the property in issue in the suit, is resisting the judgment and decree dated 29.03.2017, which has become final.

4. Facts relevant for the present case, as stated, are to the effect that Vishwanath Kumar Mehrotra s/o Braj Mohan Lal, was the sole owner of the property in question i.e. Gata No. 1789M situated at Mohalla Chhedipurwa, Station Road, Gonda. The said Vishwanath Kumar Mehrotra, who was handicapped and since he was not being looked after by his wife and children, bequeathed his entire property by way of a registered Will Deed dated 01.06.1970 in favour of the petitioner and based upon the same, the petitioner, after death of Vishwanath Kumar Mehrotra, being successor, became the owner of the property under the Will Deed dated 01.06.1970 including the property in issue.

5. It is also stated that Shyama @ Shyamo Devi, widow of Vishwanath Kumar Mehrotra, filed a SCC Suit No. 5 of 2014 for eviction of the shop (property in issue) in collusion with one Masroor Ahmed, who as per the petitioner was never the tenant or lessee of Late Vishwanath Kumar Mehrotra. On coming to know about the pendency of suit, the petitioner on the basis of a Will Deed dated 01.06.1970 preferred an application dated 14.09.2016 for impleadment under Order 1 Rule 10 of Code of Civil Procedure (in short "CPC") praying therein that the petitioner be impleaded in the array of the parties in the suit. The said application was opposed by Shyamo Devi vide her objection dated 01.10.2016. The petitioner's application No. C2/64 for impleadment was rejected on 26.11.2016 for want of prosecution. Thereafter, the SCC Suit No.5 of 2014 was decreed in favour of Shyamo Devi vide order dated 29.03.2017.

6. On coming to know about the aforesaid, the petitioner assailed the orders dated 26.11.2016 as also 29.03.2017 by filing a Revision along with an application for condonation of delay registered as Miscellaneous Case No. 617 of 2017, which was rejected on 15.02.2019 by the Revisional Court.

7. Thereafter, the petitioner assailed the orders dated 15.02.2019, 26.11.2016 and 29.03.2017 before this Court by filing a petition i.e. Misc. Single No. 14839 of 2019 (Salik Ram Singh v. 3rd Additional District Judge Gonda and Ors.), which was dismissed on 24.05.2019 by this Court with an observation that the petitioner may file a suit for declaration of his claim in regard to property in dispute and thereafter, taking note of the observation made by this Court in the judgment dated 24.05.2019 passed in Petition No. 14839 of 2019, the petitioner preferred a suit for declaration i.e. Regular Suit No. 481 of 2019, which is pending before a Court of competent jurisdiction. In addition to Regular Suit for declaration of rights over the property in question, the petitioner preferred two application dated 09.08.2021 Nos. 137-C1/1 (for stay of the execution proceedings) and 140-C2/1 under Order 21 Rule 97/99/101 of CPC before the Execution Court in Execution Case No. 1 of 2017, which were rejected on 29.10.2021. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred a Review Application for reviewing the order dated 29.10.2021, which was also rejected by the Execution Court on 11.11.2021. The orders dated 29.10.2021 and 11.11.2021 are impugned in this petition.

8. The relevant portion of the order dated 29.10.2021,