The executing court may summarily reject obstruction applications without merit when a third party fails to demonstrate legal possession or rights over the property disputed in a executed decree.

1. This Revision Application is filed by the applicants challenging the Order dated 16 October 2023, passed by the Civil Judge Junior Division Panhala rejecting application filed by the applicants under the provisions of Order 21, Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Code) obstructing to the execution of the decree passed in favor of Respondent No.1.

2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that a residential house and open premises admeasuring Gram Panchayat Property No. 410 out of CTS No.43 situated at Village-Vadi Ratnagiri, Taluka-Panhala, District Kolhapur was originally owned by Ganpati Kothavale, who died leaving behind his son Dhondiram and daughter Akkatai It appears that Dhondiram had two wives, Chitrabai and Indubai. On 29 April 1985, Dhondiram and his sons (through Chitrabai) executed Sale Deed in respect of the house property in favour of Respodent No.1-Laxman Balwant Chougule. It is the case of the Revision Applicants, who are Indubai and her daughters that the Sale Deed executed by Dhondiram was without their consent and since the Revision Applicants had a share in the house property, Respondent No.2 did not acquire any title in the house property. Revision Applicants claim to be in possession of the Suit Property.

3. It appears that the suit property was handed over by Respondent No. 1 to Respondent No.2-Maruti Shankar Yadav as a gratuitous licensee and Respondent No.1 desired possession of the suit property from Respondent No.2, who was unauthorisedly occupying the same. Respondent No.1/Plaintiff filed Regular Civil Suit No. 90 of 1998 seeking possession of the suit property against Respondent No. 2. The suit was contested by Respondent No.2. By Judgment and Decree dated 21 January 2006, the suit was decreed. The Appeal filed before the District Court came to be dismissed on 15 June 2020. Respondent No.2 thereafter filed Second Appeal before this Court, which also came to be disposed of by this Court by Order dated 13 March 2023 with clarification that the decree of the Trial Court was only in respect of Gram Panchayat Milkat No.43-1 and that the Plaintiff was not seeking any rights in respect of Gram Panchayat Milkat No.43-2. Respondent No.2 filed Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court which came to be rejected. This is how the decree of the Trial Court attained finality.

3. The decree was put in execution by Respondent No.1 by filing Regular Darkhast No. 19 of 2020. In that Darkhast, Revision Applicants filed application at Exhibit-39 obstructing to the execution of the decree contending that the Revision Applicants always jointly owned and possessed the suit property and that since they were not impleaded to the Suit, the decree would not be binding on the Revision Applicants. By Order dated 16 October 2023, the executing court has proceeded to reject the obstruction application of the Revision Applicants. Aggrieved by the Order dated 16 October 2023, the Revision Applicants have filed the present Revision.

4. Dr. Chandrachud, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner would submit that once the Revision Applicants pleaded before the executing Court that they are in possession of the suit property and obstruction was presented to the execution of the decree, it was incumbent for the Executing Court to institute a full-fledged enquiry under the provisions of Order 21 Rule 101 of the Code. He would submit that even a person other than the judgment debtor apprehending dispossession from immovable property is entitled to file application under Order 21 Rule 97 of the Code and that he/she need not wa