obstruction of the appellants and seeking to removal the obstruction and to obtain delivery of the property purchased by him. The obstruction ... withdrew that application, the dismissal of that application placed the respondent in the same position, as if lie had not filed any application
obstruction i.e., within 15 days from the date of obstruction. In view of these facts, it cannot be said that the Application ... filing an application to remove the obstruction. The second occasion of obstruction was on 3.8.1995. Hence the Application No. 4813 of 1995 filed for removal
said obstruction application
was dismissed after contest on 12.01.2007. Hence, the present suit is not
maintainable, in view of the bar under Order 21 Rule ... delivery application was pending, the present plaintiff has filed an
obstruction application in E.A.No.60 of 2005 which was dismissed on
12.01.2007. Where
seeking for
removal of an obstruction, if made by any person.
Thus, when there is an obstruction, only such
obstruction gives a cause of action ... such obstruction. On the other
hand, I doubt as to whether the obstructer himself
can come to the court and file an application under
Order
contended by the learned counsel for the first respondent plaintiff, the obstruction application has to berejected in limini without going into the merits ... view of order 21 Rule 102. He has submitted that the obstruction application under Order 21 Rule 97 cannot be adjudicated under Order 21 Rule
contended by the learned counsel for the first respondent plaintiff, the obstruction application has to berejected in limini without going into the merits ... view of order 21 Rule 102. He has submitted that the obstruction application under Order 21 Rule 97 cannot be adjudicated under Order 21 Rule
right and the executing court has to simply dismiss the obstruction application.
10. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the executing court ... maintainable to the executing court because such application complaining 'resistance and obstruction' by the third party could be filed only by the Decree
application under Section 47 , C.P.C. and the obstruction application :
In A.I.R. 1998 S.C. 1827 (cited supra), it was held that ... question under the application filed under Section 47 , C.P.C., the learned executing judge considered the application for removal of obstruction and held that
obstructed delivery of possession and therefore respondent 1 filed an application for removal of obstruction in W. P. 943 of 1980. The appellant resisted ... said application for removal of obstruction contending that he is not one claiming any rights under the tenants against whom the order of eviction
obstruction, as per Article 129 of the Limitation Act, 1963 , whether the petition to remove the obstruction filed on 22.3.2004 in respect of the obstruction ... obstruction removed and each occasion of obstruction or resistance furnishes a cause of action to the decree holder to make an application for removal
