Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

5. It is however contended by Sri Satyanarayana that the respondents were themselves present in the Lower Court when the petition was called on 4.10.1971. But, the order of the Lower Court in E. A. No. 84 of 1971 says that the respondents were called but were absent. The lower court must have noted if the respondents were present. It is next contended that delivery of possession having been effected on 11.10.1971 and the only remedy open to the respondents is to fine an application under Order 21, Rule 100, Civil Procedure Code for restoration of the possession and not to ask for setting aside the ex parte order passed in E. A. No. 84 of 1971. But this submission is also devoid of any force. Order 21, Rule 97, civil procedure Code enables a decree-holder of a decree for possession of immovable property or the purchaser of any such property sold in execution of a decree to make an application to the court complaining of resistance or obstruction caused by any person in obtaining possession of the property. The court then should issue notice to the party against whom the application is made and investigate into the matter. If the court finds that the obstruction is caused by the judgment debtor or by some other person at his instigation, it shall direct, under Order 21, Rule 98, civil procedure Code the decree holder or the purchaser, as the case may be, to be put in possession. But if the obstruction is caused by any person (other than the judgment debtor or some other person at his instigation) claiming in good faith to be in possession of the property on his own account or on account of some person other than the judgment-debtor, the court shall make an order dismissing the application. Order 21, Rule 99 read with Rule 97, Civil Procedure Code clearly requires the court to issue notice to the obstructors and consider their objections and dispose of the application after hearing. The procedure to be followed when such applications are made under Order 21, Rule 97, is prescribed in Rule 104 of the said order. Order 21, Rule 104 (2) provides that on the date fixed for the hearing, if the applicant does not appear, the court may dismiss the application. Order 21, Rule 104 (3) provides that if the applicant appears and the respondent does not appear, the court may dispose of the application ex parte. Order 21, Rule 105 provides for setting aside the order passed either under Order 21, Rule 104 (2) or under Rule 104 (3).