The petitioner being aggrieved by the order

dated 20.01.2022, passed by the Principal Senior Civil

Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru rejecting

application of the petitioner filed under Order XXI

3

Rules 97 and 98 r/w Section 151 of CPC in Execution

No.55/2018 filed this writ petition.

2. Brief facts leading rise to filing of this petition

are as under:

Respondent

No.1

filed

a

suit

in

O.S.No.

1400/2017 for the relief of specific performance of

contract and directing respondent No.2 to execute the

registered sale deed in respect of the suit schedule

property in favour of respondent No.1. In the said

suit the matter was referred to Lok Adalat on

22.04.2018.

The

parties

to

the

suit

having

compromised, filed a joint memo and suit came to be

decreed in terms of the joint memo. The respondent

No.1 filed an execution petition in E.P.No.55/2018. In

the said execution, the petitioner filed an application

under Order XXI Rules 97 and 98 r/w Section 151 of

CPC in obstruction to resist the execution of the

decree. The Trial Court vide order dated 20.01.2022,

4

rejected the application through the impugned order.

The said order is challenged in this writ petition.

3. The registry, at the outset while scrutinizing

the writ petition papers, has raised an objection

relating to the maintainability of the writ petition by

taking note of Order XXI Rule 103 of CPC. It is

contended that an appeal would lie in respect of an

order passed on an application under Order XXI Rules

97 to 101 of CPC.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties on the

office objections.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits

that the Executing Court has not held any enquiry or

recorded any evidence to consider the application in

the nature of the suit and as such, the manner in

which the application has been rejected, will not

amount to a decree so as to maintain an appeal under

5

Section 96 of CPC. In order to support such a

contention, the learned counsel for petitioner has

placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex

Court in (2015) 1 SCC 379 in the case of SAMEER

SINGH & ANR. VS. ABDUL RAB & ORS. Hence he

submits that the writ petition filed by the petitioner is

maintainable and office objections be overruled.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent

No.1 submits that consideration of the merits of the

rival contentions in deciding the rights as claimed in

the application would be sufficient to constitute

adjudication of the right claimed and there is no

compulsion that oral evidence must be recorded in

every case. He further submits that the Executing

Court has already recorded a finding that the

petitioner is claiming right, title and interest under the

judgment debtor and as such the present application

is hit by Rule 102 of Order XXI. The question of

6

holding detailed enquiry does not arise. He further

submits that the Executing Court is of the opinion that

an enquiry on the application is not at all necessary.

He further submits that the Executing Court was

justified in rejecting the application filed by the

petitioner. He further submits that the petitioner has

no right over the suit schedule property. He further

submits that the Executing Court has adjudicated the

rights of the parties as claimed. He further submits

that the writ petition filed by the petitioner is not

maintainable. He further places reliance on the

judgment of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in MRS.

HEMALATHA NAYAK @ VIJAYA LAXMI SHENOY VS. SRI. U.

PRABHAKAR NAYAK & ANR., reported in ILR 2017 KAR

2834. Hence, on these grounds, prays to dismiss the

writ petition as not maintainable.

7. The petitioner is challenging the impugned

order

dated

20.01.2022,

passed

in

Execution

7

No.55/2018. It is seen that the application which is

considered through the said order is one filed under

Order XXI Rules 97 and 98 r/w Section 151 CPC. The

Executing Court while deciding an application under

Order XXI Rule 97 CPC is empowered to adjudicate

the right, title