Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Sri V.R. Reddy Kovvuri, learned counsel for the petitioner would mainly contend that the petitioners are living in the same house jointly constructed by their forefather by inheritance. On the sole ground that the claim petition is filed under Order XXI Rule 58 CPC and admittedly, there is no attachment of E.P. schedule mentioned property. It is well settled that mere quoting of wrong provision of law does not disentitle a person from being heard for his valid rights and decide the same on merits thereby the Executing Court grossly erred in dismissing the petition. The learned counsel placed his reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in Shreenath and another v. Rajesh1, wherein the issue falls for consideration is whether third party to the decree could maintain a petition filed under Order XXI Rule 97 of CPC and the same is answered affirmatively in favour of the petitioner therein. The counsel also placed his reliance in the case of Apex Court in Silverline Forum Pvt Ltd., v. Rajiv Trust and another2 and in T.N.V. Ravi Kumar v. Sumee Pal Singh and others3 and also in unreported judgment of this court in C.R.P.No.2935 and 3559 of 2016, wherein the issue is with regard to the petition filed under Order XXI Rules 97, 101 and 102 and Section 35 (1) CPC, where the resistance or obstruction by any AIR 19989 SC 1827 (1998) 3 SCC 723 2015 (2) ALD 599 5 MGR, J person to delivery of possession in execution of decree of ejectment and held maintainable, which have no help to the petitioners' case.