Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

8.3 He has also relied upon the judgment in the case of Harijan Wood Workers Production-cum-Sales Co-operative Society Ltd. v. Smt. Maya Wati and Anr., reported in AIR 1985 P & H 181 particularly Para 4 the Hon'ble Court has observed as under :

"Para 4 ..... From a bare reading of the aforesaid Rules, it is clear that if a decree-holder is resisted or obstructed by any person in obtaining possession of the property, he can make an application under Rule 97 complaining of the resistance or obstruction. The person causing resistance or obstruction is not entitled under that rule to make an application. However, if the decree-holder makes the necessary application, the person causing the resistance or obstruction is entitled to defend his conduct. In other words at that stage he is entitled to be in defensive but cannot take an offensive step. In case he wants to take such a step, he can do so under Rule 99 but after surrendering possession. The Rule has been framed to protect the decree-holder from frivolous claims by third persons. All questions arising between the parties to the proceedings on an application under Rule 97 or Rule 99 and relevant to the adjudication of the application are now required to be determined by the Court dealing with the application. However, if the person in possession wants to raise any dispute before surrendering possession, he can do so by filing a suit for declaration of his title to the property. During the pendency of the suit, he can protect his possession by making an application for temporary injunction. The Court will dispose of the application on merits and grant relief to temporary injunction if the plaintiff is able to establish prima facie strong case in his favour. Therefore, we are of the opinion that any person other than the judgment-debtor cannot file an objection petition under Rule 97 on the ground that he is not liable to ejectment in execution of a decree obtained by the decree-holder against the judgment-debtor."