Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 3 of 3 (0.20 seconds)Shreenath & Another vs Rajesh & Others on 13 April, 1998
In Shreenath v. Rajesh, AIR 1998 SC 1827, it has been made crystal clear that Order 21 Rule 97 conceives of resistance or obstruction to the possession of immovable property when made in execution of a decree by "any person". This may be either by the person bound by the decree, claiming title through the judgment-debtor or claiming independent right of his own including a tenant not party to the suit or even a stranger. A decree-holder, in such a case, may make an application to the Executing Court complaining such resistance for delivery of possession of the property. Rule 97 (2) after 1976 substitution empowers the Executing Courts when such claim is made to proceed to adjudicate upon the applicant's claim in accordance with the provisions contained thereinafter. This refers to Order 21 Rule 101 (as Amended by 1976 Act) under which all questions relating to right, title or interest in the property arising between the parties under Order 21 Rule 97 or Rule 99 should be determined by the Court and not by a separate suit. By the amendment, one has not to go for a fresh suit but all matters pertaining to that property including any obstruction by a stranger are adjudicated in the executing proceedings. The expression "any person" in Rule 97 (1) is used deliberately for widening the scope of power so that the Executing Court could adjudicate the claim made in any such application under Order 21 Rule 97. Thus by the use of the words "any person" it includes all persons resisting the delivery of possession, claiming right in the property, even those not bound by the decree, including tenants or other persons claiming right on their own, including a stranger. So, under Order 21 Rule 101 all disputes between the decree-holder and any such person is to be adjudicated by the Executive Court. A party is not thrown out to relegate itself to the long-drawn-out arduous procedure of a fresh suit. This is to salvage the possible hardship both to the decree-holder and the other person claiming title on their own right to get it adjudicated in the very execution proceedings.
Silverline Forum Pvt. Ltd vs Rajiv Trust And Another on 31 March, 1998
5. Again in Silverline Forum Pvt. Ltd. v. Rajiv Trust, (1998) 3 SCC 723, it has been observed that the adjudication mentioned in Order 21 Rule 97 (2) need not necessarily involve a detailed enquiry or collection of evidence. The Court can make the adjudication on admitted facts or even on the averments made by the resister. Of course the Court can direct the parties to adduce evidence for such determination if the Court deems it necessary.
1