second obstruction. The first obstruction might be by a stranger and the decree-holder might consider that any application to remove such stranger summarily would ... make his application, and the fact that he bad failed to make an application in respect of a previous obstruction would be immaterial
execution is obstructed, the decree-holder can, by an application, complain of such obstruction. Rule 97, C.P.C . is, however, permissible. The decree-holder ... filed beyond 30 days of the earlier obstruction. It is the obstruction complained of in an application under Order 21, Rule
respect of the subsequent obstruction and that every obstruction or resistance gives him a fresh cause for making an application under Order 21, Rule ... removal of resistance or obstruction. That obstruction cannot then be said to be continued when a fresh obstruction is made to delivery of possession under
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
persons, who were
alleged to be in possession, had filed obstruction application.
DH also filed his reply ... further appears that detailed obstruction application
was filed by the persons claiming to be in possession (Exh.31)
on 8.7.2011 followed by similar applications
order dated 19-5-1983, directed removal of
the obstruction holding that the third application was not
precluded to be filed by the appellant ... application to the Court
complaining of such resistance or obstruction.
9
(2) Where any application is made under sub-rule (1), the
Court shall proceed
making any reference in that application to his earlier application Misc. 195 of 1937-38 for removal of obstruction and its dismissal for default ... tenant had offered obstruction. Thereupon defendant 4 had applied for removal of obstruction and delivery of possession. That application was opposed by the plaintift
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
Rule 97 of the Civil P.C. for removal of obstruction, being Miscellaneous Application No. 2 of 3955. The defendant No. 2 contended that ... application of the defendant, who was the plaintiff in that suit, the Court made an order allowing the application and removing the obstruction. The defendant
