SANJAY MISRA, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri M. Islam learned Counsel for the revisionist and Sri Ravindra Nath Mishra holding brief of Sri J. Nagar on behalf of the Opposite party.
(2.) THIS is a civil revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure againsttheorderdated9.9.1991 passed in Execution Case No. 214/74 of 1991, Abdul Jabbar v. Sri Niwas Gupta, whereby the objection filed by the revisionist to an application under Order 21 Rule 95, C.P.C. has been rejected by holding that the revisionist/obstructer to the decree, can move an application under Order 21 Rule 99, C.P.C. only after he has been ejected from the property in question and the application under Order21 Rule 95, C.P.C. has been allowed. Learned Counsel for the revisionist has submitted that he had filed an objection to the application of the decree holder under Order 21 Rule 95, C.P.C. Such objection was filed by the revisionist claiming independent title and possession over the property in question since the time of his ancestors. He also claimed to have raised constructions thereupon and hence could not be dispossessed unless the dispute/resistance was decided under the provisions of Order 21 Rule 97/101 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the Opposite Party has submitted that under the provisions of Order 21 Rule 95, it is quite clear that the resistance put up is to be removed and the purchaser has to be put in possession by removing any person who refuses to vacate the premises. According to him, Opposite Party is the auction purchaser in execution of the decree and hence the objection filed by the revisionist was rightly rejected by the executing Court.;