COMMON ORDER

The revision petitioners are alienee’s alienee. Their vendor purchased the property of respondent trust during the pendency of the ejectment suit initiated by the trust in O.S.No.309 of 1977. The respondent’s trust has filed the suit for ejectment and recovery of possession from the tenant of the trust. The said tenant during the pendency of the suit sold the rd rd properties to the 3 parties. From the 3 parties the vendor of the petitioner purchased the properties. On the basis of the decree, the respondent trust have filed the execution proceedings. In the said execution proceedings, the bailiff was appointed to take the possession. At the time, the petitioner came to know about the filing of the suit and exparte decree obtained against their vendor’s vendor. Therefore, they have filed the objection petition under Order 21 Rule 97 of C.P.C., and the same was dismissed without numbering in C.F.R.No. 1317 of 2019. The said dismissal orders have been challenged before this court in the present C.R.Ps.

2. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the respondent trust has no title to the suit schedule property. The respondent trust have filed the suit in O.S.No. 228 of 1977 and obtained the exparte decree only in the year 2003 and they have also filed the execution petition belatedly in the year 2014 i.e., after 11 years from the date of decree. In the interregnum period, the petitioners constructed the house and settled in the land. The learned counsel further elaborated his argument by placing reliance of the various precedents that “any person” under order 21 rule 97 of C.P.C. includes the purchaser and hence their application is legally maintainable. Therefore their application ought to have been entertained by the execution court and decided their case of title. The learned counsel placed the following precedents:-

2.1. (a) in the case of Akkaloi Ammani Chatram Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and others reported in AIR 1980 Madras 149 b) In the case of Silverline Forum Pvt Ltd vs. Rajiv Trust and another reported in (1998) 3 SCC 723 c) In the case of Kishan Lal Barwa Vs. sharda Saharan and another reported in 2015 SCC Online All 4980 d) In the case of Shamsher Singh and another Vs. Lieutenant Colonel Nahar Singh (Dead) through Lrs and others reported in (2019) 17 SCC 279 e) In the case of Asgar and others vs Mohan Varma and others reported in (2020) 16 SCC 230 f) In the case of Jini Dhabrajgir and another vs. Shibu Mathew and another reported in 2023 SCC Online 643 g)In the case of T.G.Ahok Kumar Vs. Govindammal and another reported in (2010) 14 SCC 370 h) In the case of Har Vilas Vs Mahendra Nath and another reported in (2011) 15 SCC 377 i) In the case of Sameer Singh and another Vs. Abdul Rab and others reported in (2015) 1 SCC 379 j) In the case of Brahmdeo Chaudhary vs Rishikesh Prasad Jaiswal and another reported in (1997) 3 SCC 694

3. The learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the title of trust was already decided in the suit in O.S.No.228 of 1977 on the basis of the title deed of the trust. Even though it is an exparte decree, the said decree is binding on the “pendente lite” purchaser. He has no authority to dispute the title of the trust. The application filed by the petitioner under order 21 Rule 97 of C.P.C. is not applicable to the person. He was also not bonafide purchaser and hence the learned trial judge correctly dismissed the application. He also placed the following precedents to substantiate his contention.

4. This court considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the entire record and also the precedents relied by them.

5. The following questions arise in this case :-

5.1. Whether the petitioner has a right to make the application under Order 21 Rule 97 of C.P.C.

5.2. Whether the petitioner's claim before this court to decide his objection to the execution of the trust property can be entertained under 21 Rule 101 of C.P.C.

5.3.