1997 Supreme(MP) 876

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
DEEPAK VERMA, J.
Nidhi Rathi - Applicant
Versus
Atikabai - Respondent
Cr. No. 725 of 1997 (I)
Decided On : 01-09-1997

Headnote:Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – – O. 21 R. 97 and 16 – – objection under – – no obstruction by stranger – – previous objection under R. 16 also rejected – – objection rightly rejected.

        Short Note

       1. This revision petition is filed against the order dated 16.5.97 passed by the 1st Civil Judge Class 2nd Indore in Civil Execution No.160/77, whereby an application u/o 21 Rule 97 C.P.C. has been rejected.

       Held: It is to be seen that the application of the applicant virtually claims that he should be allowed to step into the shoes of the decree – holders and then he should be allowed to execute the decree. Order 21, R. 97 CPC contemplates that where the holder of a decree for possession of immovable property or the purchaser of any such property sold in execution of a decree is resisted or obstructed by any person in taking possession of the property, then he can complain of such resistance or obstruction. In any case, after examining the contents of the applicant’s application and the alleged agreements it cannot be said that applicant is a stranger whose rights can be adjudicated upon under the aforesaid provision. The facts – as mentioned by the applicant as also the agreements alleged to have been executed in his favour by late Taiyab Ali would show that he intends to execute the decree himself. There is no obstruction by any stranger with regard to execution of the decree. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court the aforesaid provisions of O. 21, R. 97 CPC is not applicable to the facts of the instant case.

       2. It may also be mentioned here that the applicant's earlier application filed under O.21 R.16 CPC was rejected by the Executing Court on 6.2.1996 and against which his revision was also dismissed as far back as on 12.3.1997. It may be noted that from the date of the alleged agreement of sale dated 4.1.93 till 13.11.95, when the applicant had filed his first application under O.21, R. 16 CPC, he took no steps in this regard. The contents of the agreement fully show that he was aware of the pendency of the matter. If he wanted, then he could have filed a suit for specific performance of the contract. Not having done so, speaks volumes on the conduct of the applicant. Thus, I find that there is no merit or substance in this revision. The same is hereby dismissed, but with no order as to costs. The Executing Court shall be at liberty to proceed with the execution and if everything is found in order, then to issue warrant of possession against the judgment debtors. AIR 1996 SC 2050 and AIR 1997 SC 856 distinguished.