Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.19 seconds)
Ram Kumar Tiwari And Others vs Deenanath And Others on 12 April, 2001 cites

Brahmdeo Choudhary vs Rishikesh Prasad Jaiswal & Anr on 22 January, 1997

"It is pertinent to note that the resistance and/or obstruction to possession of immovable property as contemplated by Order 21 Rule 97, CPC could have been offered by any person. The words 'any person' as contemplated by Order 21 Rule 97, sub-rule (1) are comprehensive enough to include apart from judgment-debtor or anyone claiming through him even persons claiming independently and who would, therefore, be total strangers to the decree. ....... Consequently, it must be held that respondent 1's application dated 6-5-1991 though seeking only reissuance of warrant for delivery of possession with aid of armed force in substance sought to bypass the previous resistance and obstruction offered by the appellant on the spot. Thus, it was squarely covered by the sweep of Order 21 Rule 97, sub-rule (1) CPC. Once that happened the procedure laid down by sub-rule (2) thereof had to be followed by the Executing Court. The Court had to proceed to adjudicate upon the application in accordance with the subsequent provisions contained in the said order."
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 235 - S B Majmudar - Full Document

Silverline Forum Pvt. Ltd vs Rajiv Trust And Another on 31 March, 1998

According to Rule 101, all questions including the questions relating to right, title or interest in the property arising between the parties to a proceeding on an application under Rule 97 or Rule 99 relevant to the adjudication of the application shall be determined by the Court dealing with the application and not by a separate suit. The questions referred to in Rule 101 are the questions which can be raised under Rule 97 or Rule 99. Rule 97 says that when resistance or obstruction to possession of immovable property is offered, then the decree-holder may make an application to the Court, which is executing the decree, making a complaint that resistance was offered, therefore, the said resistance be removed. Rule 99 provides that where any person other than the judgment-debtor is dispossessed of immovable property, then such a person may make an application to the Court complaining of such dispossession. The question whether a third party can file an objection under Rule 97 has been considered in detail by the Supreme Court in the matter of Silverline Forum Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Rajiv Trust and another, reported in 1998(3) SCC 723. In the said case, the Supreme Court has observed as under :--
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 207 - Full Document
1