COMMON ORDER :

As the issue involved in these civil revision petitions is one and the same, these matters are taken up together for disposal by this Common Order.

2. These three Civil Revision Petitions are filed against the docket order dated 11.09.2019 in E.A.No.310 of 2019 in E.P.No.11 of 2015 in O.S No.538 of 2011 on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge at Visakhapatnam.

4. Heard Mr. G. Rama Gopal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. P.Durga Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that E.P.

No.211 of 2015 was filed by the D.Hr i.e., M/s Margadarsi Chit Fund Pvt. Ltd., under Order 21 Rule 43 CPC for attachment of the moveables belonging to the 3rd J.Dr i.e., B. Muralikrishna, for realization of the decretal amount as per the decree granted by the Court below in the suit in O.S No.538 of 2011. Thereafter, the Court below ordered notices to the said 3rd J.Dr for attachment against the moveables belonging to them. The warrants of the 3rd J.Dr are returned as the house of the 3rd J.Dr was under lock and key. In view of the same, the D.Hr has filed E.A.No.311 of 2019 in E.P.No.211 of 2015 in O.S.No.538 of 2011 seeking to empower the Field Assistant to break open the locks. In the said E.A., the Court below has passed docket order.

Questioning the same, the present CRPs are filed.

6. The Court below, vide order dated 11.09.2019 has passed the following order :

“ Heard. In view of return endorsement of Ameena dated 19.09.2019, issue break open permission as prayed for.”

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Court below ought not to have initiated coercive steps to take psossession of the moveable properties inasmuchas the husband of the 3rd J.Dr filed claim petition in E.A No.219 of 2016 under Order 21 Rule 58 CPC and the same was rejected on 23.4.2019. So, the claim petitioner carried the matter before this Court vide CRP (SR) No.22473 of 2019.

8. This Court vide order, dated 13.09.2019, has issued notice and also permitted the petitioner to take out personal notice to the respondents. Thereafter, in view of the submissions of learned counsels, this Court, vide order dated 26.08.2022, while extending the interim order till 15.09.2022, directed the Registry to club the said CRP (SR) No.22473 of 2019 along with CRP Nos.2870 and 2871 of 2019.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a case reported in Brahmdeo Chaudhary versus Rishikesh Prasad Jaiswal and another1, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that :

“In short the aforesaid statutory provisions of Order XXI lay down a complete code for resolving all disputes pertaining to execution of decree for possession obtained by a decree-holder and whose attempts at executing the said decree meet with rough weather. Once resistance is offered by a purported stranger to the decree and which comes to be noted by the Executing Court as well as by the decree-holder the remedy available to the decree- holder against such an obstructionist in only under Order XXI Rule 97 sub-rule (1) and he cannot bypass such obstruction and insist on re- issuance of warrant for possession under Order XXI Rule 35 with the help of police force, as that course would amount to bypassing and circumventing the procedure laid down under Order

1 (1997) 3 Supreme Court Cases 694

XXI Rule 97 in connection with removal of obstruction of purported strangers to the decree. Once such an obstruction is on the record of the Executing Court it is difficult to appreciate how the Executing Court can tell such obstructionist that he must first lose possession and then only his remedy is to move an application under Order XXI Rule 99, CPC and pray for restoration of possession. The High Court by the impugned order and judgment has taken the view that the only remedy available to a stranger to the decree who claims any independent right, title or interest in the decretal property is to go by Order XXI Rule 99. This view of