ORDER

Matter is dictated in open Court.

1. This Miscellaneous Petition is filed by judgment-debtors being aggrieved of the order dated 3.12.2024 (Annx.P/4), passed by learned Principal District Judge, District Rewa (M.P.), in First Appeal RCA No.148/2024, affirming the order of the executing Court in Execution Case No.3800150/1989 and in addition holding that provisions contained under Order XXI rule 97 of Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'CPC' for short), are applicable only to the decree holder and not to the judgment-debtors.

2. Shri Ashish Pathak, learned counsel for petitioners submits that he has serious objection to this interpretation and in support places reliance on decision of a Coordinate Bench in Ranchhod and another v. Hukmaji and others [2010(4) M.P.L.J. 426], to submit that expression 'any person' used in Order XXI rule 97 CPC, will include the judgment-debtor and, therefore, 1 MP-415-2025 judgment-debtor can also file objections under Order XXI rule 97 CPC.

3. After hearing Shri Ashish Pathak, learned counsel for petitioners and going through the judgment of Coordinate Bench in Ranchhod and another (supra), it is evident that Hon'ble Coordinate Bench had referred to the judgment of apex Court in Bhanwar Lal v. Satyanarain and another (AIR 1995 SC 358) and has held that any person includes the judgmentdebtor also.

4. Similarly, referring to another judgment of Supreme Court in Shreenath and another v. Rajesh and others (AIR 1998 SC 1827), it is held that third party in possession claiming independent right as tenant can object and get his claim adjudicated when sought to be dispossessed by decreeholder, he need not wait until he is dispossessed. Full Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Usha Jain and others v. Manmohan Bajaj AIR 1980 MP 146 (FB), was overruled.

5. After hearing learned counsel for petitioners and going through the judgment of Supreme Court in Bhanwar Lal (supra), in para 4 & 5, Supreme Court has held as under :-

"4. The procedure has been provided in Rules 98 to 103. We are not, at present, concerned with the question relating to the procedure to be followed and question to be determined under Order 21, rules 98 to 102. A reading of order 21, rule 97 CPC 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 dehors the judgment-debtor and he resists execution of a decree, then the Court in addition to the power under rule 35(3) has been empowered to conduct an enquiry whether the obstruction by that person in obtaining possession of immovable property was legal or not. The decree-holder gets a right under rule 97 to make an application against third parties to have his obstruction (sic) and an enquiry thereon could be done. Since, each occasion of obstruction or resistance furnishes a cause of action to the decree-holder to make an application for removal of the obstruction or resistance by such person.

5. When the appellant had made the application on 25-5- 1979 against Satyanarain, in law it must be only the application made under Order 21, rule 97(1) of CPC. The executing Court, obviously, was in error in directing to make a fresh application. It is the duty of the executing court to consider the averments in the petition and consider the scope of the applicability of the relevant rule. On technical ground the executing court dismissed the second application on limitation and also the third application, on the ground of res judicata which the High Court has in the revisions now upheld. The procedure is the handmaid of substantive justice but in this case it has run its rooster."

6. Similarly, in case of Silverline Forum Pvt. Ltd. v. Rajiv Trust and another (AIR 1998 SC 1754), in paras 11, 12,13 & 15 as under :-

" 11.In the above context we may refer to Order 21 rule 35(1) which reads thus:

"Where a decree is for the delivery of any immova