defendants/judgment debtors and the petitioner herein, who is a
third party obstructor claiming title to the property through the 1st defendant
in the suit ... suit is different from the property which was purchased by the
obstructor. The said application in E.A.No.228 of 2017 was allowed
ground that the
suit was contested by revision petitioners and other obstructors and all other
earlier proceedings have been dismissed and the same has been ... Court considered the earlier applications filed
in the year 1991 by the obstructors including the judgment debtor, which has
been upheld by the Apex Court
application under
Order 21 Rule 97 CPC by claiming himself as an
obstructor.
http://www.judis.nic.in
12
9. Having regard to the above
order of dismissal of the application
filed by revision petitioner / obstructor under Section 151 of Code of Civil
Procedure seeking to recall the delivery order
been deposited.
That ground itself is sufficient to remove the obstructors from the
premises. Hence, seeks for allowing of these revisions.
4. Heard the learned ... matter of right cannot be invoked to
remove the obstructors.
6. The respondents are, in fact, in possession of the property on their
own claiming
been deposited.
That ground itself is sufficient to remove the obstructors from the premises.
Hence, seeks for allowing of these revisions.
4. Heard the learned ... matter of right cannot be invoked to remove the obstructors.
6. The respondents are, in fact, in possession of the property on their
own claiming
authorities. The
authorities cannot act as an agent of the obstructors or third parties and
keep the document pending and exparte set aside. Such attitude
under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC to
implead the revision petition as obstructor.
2. The first respondent had filed a rent control proceedings in RCOP
suit property and is residing at Kerala, cannot be called
as an obstructor in the present execution petition. The revision
petitioner, being the judgment debtor
Rule 34 and
35 of Code of Civil Procedure , the so called obstructor should be given an
opportunity. This Court also prima facie finds that ... execution Court shall decide the
execution petition within two months. Since, the obstructor has already been
examined as P.W.1, cross examination
