Jai Singh Sekhon, J. - (1.) The decree holder has filed this revision petition against the' order of the Senior Subordinate Judge, Rupnagar, dismissing his application filed under the provisions of Order 21 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code'), by holding that Pritam Dass and Parhlad Bhagat respondents are in possession of the property in dispute in their own right of ownership and tenancy respectively.
(2.) In brief, the facts are that Sewa Dass Chela Mahant Parkasha Nand got the order of ejectment dated 30th March. 1974, against Hans Raj, judgment-debtor. He then obtained the warrants of possession in the execution application, wherein it was reported that Pritam Dass Chela ; Parhlad Bhagat had resisted the delivery of possession of the property i i dispute. The decree-holder then moved an application under the provisions of Order 21 Rule 97 of the Code for taking accessory action against the above referred respondents. On receipt of notices, Pritam bass and Parhlad Bhagat contested the application on the ground that the property in dispute belongs to Udasi Dera Ram Bagh Ropar. It is under the management of Pritam Das Chela Puran Dass objector On the land in dispute some portion of the building known as Raj Hotel had been let out by Mahant Pritam Dass to Parhlad Bhagat objector vide lease deed dated 13th March, 1974. While the land measuring 1 Kanal 14 Marlas comprising in Rectangle No 17 Khasra No 15/1/1 and Rectangle No. 18 Khasra No. 11/1 has also been given on rent by Pritam Dass Manager of the Dera to Smt. Daler Kaur w/o Prem Sinph tin Kabal Singh son of Labh Singh. They further maintained that a collusive decree has been obtained by Sewa Dass against Hans Raj judgment-debtor and that the objectors being in possession of the suit property in their own right and not at the instance of judgment-debtor, are not liable to be ejected. Hans Raj, judgment-debtor died during the pendency of this application before the Executing Court and his legal representatives were brought on the record. The trial Court framed the issue '-whether the objector is in possession of the suit property in his own right and not on behalf of the J.D." The learned Senior Subordinate Judge after appraisal of evidence led by both the parties came to the conclusion that the controversy between the parties shall be governed under the provisions of the old Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Old Code') and not under the amended Code of Civil Procedure. Reliance in this regard was was placed on the findings of tins High Court in Surjit Singh v. Sardara Singh and another, 1979 RLR 15. It was further held that the objectors were occupying the property in dispute in their own right and not under these judgment debtors. In the light of these findings, the application of the decree-holder under the provisions of Order 21 Rule 97 of the Code was dismissed.
(3.) Mr. Arun ain learned counsel for the petitioner, contended on the basis of the findings of a Single Bench of this Court in Ram Parshad v. Kesho Ram, 1987 (1) Rent L.R. 319, that the provisions of Order 21 Rule 97 of the Code, as amended by the Amendment Act, 1976, would govern the present controversy and that the objectors had to surrender the possession of the property first before getting any adjudication from the Civil Court under Rule 99 ibid that they were holding the property in their own right of ownership. Mr. Ashok Bhan, Senior Advocate, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, maintained J that the objectors were simply defending the application filed by the decree holder under Order 21 Rule 97 of the Code and thus it will not make any difference even if the amended provisions of the Code are made applicable. He also maintained that since the application under Order 21 Rule 97 as well as the replication were filed in the year 1974 before the Code of Civil Procedure was amended in the year 1976, the procedure laid down under the Old Code would be applicable.;