1. This second appeal under section 100 of Civil Procedure Code has been filed against the judgment dated 14th November, 2007, passed by the Court of First Additional Distt. Judge, West Nimar, Mandleshwar, in Regular First Appeal No. 20-Al05, dismissing the appeal and affrrming the judgments of the trial Court.

2. Brief facts are that the appellants had filed suit for declaration in respect of agricultural land, Survey No. 355 area 5.66 acres. The respondent No. 1-Hukumji had, filed counter claim in the suit, which was decided by the judgment dated 16.3.2002, holding the respondent No.1 entitled for possession of suit land and Mesne profit of Rs. 2000/-. The first appeal by the appellants was rejected on 26.4.2003 and the Second Appeal was dismissed on 14.11.2003. The respondent No.1 applied for execution of the decree in which the appellants filed objection under Order 41, Rule 97 of the Civil Procedure Code. The Executing Court by order dated 1.4.2005 while rejecting the objection held that the judgment -debtor had, no right to file the objection and that during the pendency of suit he had not raised objection relating to identity of the property. The First Appeal preferred by the appellants/judgment -debtor has been dismissed by impugned judgment, holding that the appellants are not a third party, therefore, they have no right to file objection under Order 41 Rule 97 of the Civil Procedure Code.

3. This Court by order dated 5.8.2008 has admitted the appeal on the following substantial question of law :-.

"Whether under Order 21, Rule 97 the expression 'any person' would include the judgment-debtor to resist/obstruct the execution of the decree passed in favour of the plaintiff?"

4. The following additional substantial question of law was formulated by this Court by order dated 10.4.2010 :

"Whether the first appellate Court has passed the judgment under appeal in accordance with the provisions contained in Order 41, Rule 31 of the Civil Procedure Code?"

5. The aforesaid substantial question of law are decided as under :

First Substantial question of law

6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that under Order 21. Rule 97 the expression 'any person' include the judgment-debtor also, therefore, the Courts below have committed an error in rejecting the objection submitted by the appellants.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 submitted that no error has been committed by the Courts below in rejecting the objection and the appeal.

8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

9. Order 21, Rule 97 provides that in case, where the decree holder having decree for possession of immovable property is resisted or obstructed by 'any person' obtaining possession of the property. he can make an application to the Court complaining of such resistance or obstruction. Under Order 21 Rule 97 any party in possession of the property resisting execution of the decree can seek adjudication of his objection. The word 'any person' in Rule 97 of Civil Procedure Code has not been assigned narrow meaning only to cover the third parties and stranger but all persons resisting delivery of possession are covered within its meaning and such a person can also be the judgment-debtors in a given case.

10. The Supreme Court in the matter of Bhanwar Lai v. Satyanarain and another, reported in AIR 1995 SC 358, has held that any person includes the judgment-debtor also. The Supreme Court has in the matter of Bhanwar Lal laid down:

"A reading 0f O.21 R. 97, Civil Procedure Code clearly envisages that "any person" even including the judgment-debtor irrespective of whether he claims derivative title from the judgment-debtor or set up his own right, title or interest de hors the judgment -debtor and he resists execution of a decree, then the Court in addition to the power under R. 35 (3) has been empowered to conduct an enquiry whether the obstruction by that person in obtaining possession of immovable property