POOJA GARG Vs. SATYA PRAKASH GOYAL AND 3 ORS
LAWS(ALL)-2015-4-480
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on April 02,2015

Pooja Garg Appellant
VERSUS
Satya Prakash Goyal And 3 Ors Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, for setting aside the order dated 20th March, 2015, passed in Execution Case No. 1 of 2013, pending before the court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Saharanpur. By the said order, which is contained in Annexure 13 to the petition, decree holder has been directed to take steps to issue writ for Amin to deliver possession pursuant to decree of possession to the decree holder. This order has been passed in Execution Case No.1 of 2013, pursuant to a decree passed by the competent court. It is not in dispute that such decree has attained finality.
(2.) The petitioner in the present petition alleges that she is landlord of the property in question, and has filed an application, under Order 21 Rules 97, 99 & 103 read with Section 151 CPC, with the prayer that she be permitted to resist the decree, and an order be passed for delivering the possession of the property to the applicant. From the perusal of prayer of the application itself, it is apparent that the petitioner is not in possession, and that she is seeking possession over the property in question.
(3.) Order 21 Rule 97 CPC confers right of resistance or obstruction to possession, at the instance of a third party, where possession is to be granted to the decree holder. This right, therefore, is available to someone, who is in possession, and resists the delivery of possession to the decree holder. Admittedly the petitioner applicant is not in possession, and therefore, the provisions of Order 21 Rule 97 CPC would not be attracted. So far as Order 21 Rule 99 CPC is concerned, such a provision is available, if any person other than the judgment debtor is dispossessed from immovable property by the holder of a decree for possession of such property pursuant to decree, then such person can make an application to the court concerned complaining of such dispossession. Admittedly as the petitioner is not in possession, the question of her dispossession, pursuant to the decree, does not arise, and therefore, no grievance in respect of dispossession, pursuant to a decree would be available to the petitioner, either.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.