Certainly. Here are the key points derived from the provided legal document:

• A stranger occupying decretal premises in his own right and resisting the execution of a decree can request the executing court to adjudicate upon his resistance and obstruction without the necessity of first handing over possession and then applying under Order XXI Rule 99 CPC (!) (!) .

• The proper procedure in case of resistance by a stranger is under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC, which mandates that the court must adjudicate upon the resistance or obstruction before proceeding further (!) .

• The words "any person" in Order XXI Rule 97 CPC are comprehensive enough to include strangers to the decree, not just judgment debtors or those claiming through them (!) .

• Resistance or obstruction offered by a person claiming independent rights in the property, who is not a judgment debtor, falls within the scope of Order XXI Rule 97, and such resistance must be adjudicated upon before dispossession (!) (!) .

• The application seeking police aid for the removal of obstruction cannot bypass the procedure laid down in Order XXI Rule 97 CPC; it must follow the adjudication process under that rule (!) .

• The remedy for a stranger who has been dispossessed before having the chance to resist or claim rights is under Order XXI Rule 99 CPC, which allows such a person to file an application claiming illegal dispossession and seeking restoration of possession (!) .

• The statutory scheme of Order XXI Rules 97 to 103 provides a complete code for resolving disputes related to execution of decrees for possession, including resistance by strangers (!) .

• The court must follow the prescribed procedure when a resistance or obstruction is encountered, including adjudication on merits, to avoid breach of natural justice principles and ensure a fair hearing for all parties involved (!) (!) .

• The remedy for a stranger claiming rights in the property and resisting execution is available at the stage of resistance, prior to actual dispossession, and not only after losing possession (!) .

• The court must consider objections and claims of a stranger to the decree on merits before dispossession, following the statutory procedure, rather than dismissing them as premature or directing a separate application under Rule 99 (!) .

• The statutory provisions aim to prevent arbitrary dispossession and ensure that objections based on independent rights are adjudicated properly within the execution proceedings (!) .

• The court must decide upon the resistance or claim of the stranger within a reasonable timeframe, especially given the age of the decree and pending proceedings, to prevent unnecessary delays (!) .

• The appellate court emphasized that the existing legal framework provides adequate procedures for resolving resistance and objections during execution, and these procedures must be followed to uphold principles of justice and fairness (!) .

• The order of the executing court and the High Court dismissing the objections of the stranger and directing only a subsequent application under Rule 99 was found to be improper, and the proceedings were remanded for proper adjudication under Order XXI Rule 97 (!) .

• The sole surviving obstructionist in the case was the appellant, and the court directed that only his claim and objections be considered in the remanded proceedings (!) .

• The court emphasized the importance of adjudicating objections on merits before dispossession to avoid violations of natural justice and to ensure fair opportunity for all parties (!) .

• The appeal was allowed, and the proceedings were remanded to the lower court for re-evaluation of the application under the correct procedural provisions, ensuring that the resistance by the appellant is properly adjudicated (!) .

Please let me know if you need further elaboration or assistance.