Judgment :- (1) Heard the learned Advocates for the respective parties. The facts of the case, very briefly, are as follows :- The predecessor-in-interest of the opposite parties filed a suit for eviction against the petitioner in the year 1990 and such suit was decreed ex-parte in the year 2000. The petitioner filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13, C.P.C. for setting, aside the ex-parte decree but the learned trial Court dismissed the said application after a contesting hearing. An appeal was preferred against such order of dismissal but upon a contested hearing the said appeal was also dismissed. Challenging such order of dismissal the petitioner filed a revisional application before this Court but the revisional application was also dismissed in the year 2007. The petitioner, thereafter, filed a regular appeal being a Title Appeal against the ex-parte decree of eviction together with an application under Section 5 read with Section 14 of the Limitation Act. Upon a contested hearing the learned First Appellate Court rejected the application and, consequently, the appeal was also dismissed. Challenging the judgment and decree passed by the learned First Appellate Court the petitioner preferred a Second Appeal before this Court, A Division Bench of this Court was pleased to dismiss the said Second Appeal. It appears that the opposite parties had put the ex-parte decree in execution being Title Execution Case No. 3 of 2007. It will appear from the impugned order that the Court bailiff went to the suit property for execution of the decree but due to strong resistance by the judgment-debtor/petitioner and his men the said decree could not be executed, The opposite parties filed an application under Order 21 Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure which was registered as Miscellaneous Case No. 29 of 2007 for grant of police help to execute the decree. In such Miscellaneous Case, on 2.5.2009 the learned Court below passed an order fixing 4.5.2009 for order. On 4.5.2009 by the impugned order the learned Court below observed that the Second Appeal has been dismissed and there is no stay order in the case. It appears that one of the opposite parties and the bailiff concerned were examined as P.W.1 and P.W.2 respectively and the writ with the bailiffs report was marked as Ext.1. On 4.5.2009 by the impugned order the learned Court below observed that the Second Appeal has been dismissed and there is no stay order in the case. It appears that one of the opposite parties and the bailiff concerned were examined as P.W.1 and P.W.2 respectively and the writ with the bailiffs report was marked as Ext.1. The learned Court below on perusal of the evidence found that on 25.09.2007 the decree holder and the Court bailiff went to the suit property for execution of the decree but due to strong resistance by the judgment-debtor and his men the said decree could not be executed and that there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence adduced on behalf of the opposite parties. The learned Court below rejected the petitioners application for time to file written objection and allowed the said application under Order 21 Rule 97, C.P.C. Challenging such impugned order dated 4.5.2009 the petitioner has filed the present revisional application. (2) The only point raised on behalf of the petitioner is that the learned Court below acted illegally and with material irregularity in rejecting the petitioners prayer for time to file the written objection against the application under Order 21 Rule 97, C.P.C. According to the learned Advocate for the petitioner, the petitioner was entitled under the law to file a written objection against the said application under Order 21 Rule 97, C.P.C. and contest the said proceedings. The senior learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the opposite parties submitted that since the petitioner is the judgment-debtor against whom the eviction decree has been passed, the petitioner is not entitled under the law to have any opportunity to file a written objection in the said Misc, Case under Order 21 Rule 97, C:P.C. The said learned senior Advocate further submitted thit if it had been a case where a stranger-third party, claiming an independent right, title and/or interest in the property in dispute, had filed an application for time to file written objection against the application for police help then in that event such time may have to be granted but the judgment- debtor cannot be given any opportunity of hearing before passing orders on the application for police help under Order 21 Rule 97, C.P.C. Order 21 Rule 97, C.P.C. envisages inter alia that if the decree holder is resisted and/or obstructed from having an eviction decree executed and from taking delivery of possession, the decree holder may make an application to the Court complaining of such resistance or obstruction. It has been further provided that where any such application is made the Court shall proceed to adjudicate upon the application in accordance with the relevant provisions contained in the said Order 21, C.P.C. According to the provisions of Order 21 Rule 101 all questions (including question relating to right, title and/or interest in the property) arising between the parties to a proceeding on an application under Order 21 Rule 97 or Rule 99, C.P.C. or their representatives, and relevant to the adjudication, of the application, shall have to be determined by the Court dealing with such application and not by a separate suit. Looking into the aforesaid provisions of law it will appear that an adjudication is required to be made by the Court when an application under Order 21 pule 97, C.P.C. is filed by a person. (3) Order 21 Rule 98 envisages that upon determination of the questions referred to a Rule 101 the Court shall, in accordance with such determination and subject to the provisions of sub rule (2), make an appropriate order either allowing the application and directing the applicant to be put in possession of the property or dismissing the application or pass any other appropriate order according to the circumstances of the case. In sub-rule (2) of Order 21 Rule 98 it has been provided that where upon determination by the Court, the Court is satisfied that the resistance and/or obstruction was occasioned without any just cause by the judgment-debtor or by some other person at the judgment-debtors instigation or on his behalf, or by any transferee, where such transfer was made during the pendency of the suit or execution proceeding, it shall direct that the applicant be put into the possession of the property, and where the applicant is still resisted or obstructed in obtaining possession, the Court may also at the instance of the applicant, order the judgment-debtor, or any person acting at his instigation or on his behalf, to be detained in the civil prison for a term which may extend to thirty days. It will thus appear that serious consequences may follow if any resistance or obstruction is caused to the execution of the decree without any just cause and valid reasons. (4) It will appear from the Form No. 40 of Appendix E of the Civil Procedure Code that in the said Form which is a "SUMMONS TO APPEAR AND ANSWER CHARGE OF OBSTRUCTING EXECUTION OF DECREE" it has been provided that the person to whom the summons is issued should appear before the Court on a particular day and answer the complaint. This Form will indicate that the obstructionist concerned is required to answer the complaint which will definitely include an opportunity to represent his or her case in writing in the form of a written objection. That apart, the gravity of the matter is also reflected in Order 21 Rule 98(2), C.P.C. The words any person appearing in Order 21 Rule 97 also includes a judgment-debtor. (5) The learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has referred to a judgment reported in AIR 2002 SC 3083 (Tanzeem-e-Sufia v. Bibi Haliman). Of course in the said reported case the question was with regard to the right of a third party in possession of the suit property to challenge the execution of the eviction decree but in paragraph 8 of the said reports it has been observed that the executing Court would have to adjudicate upon the application made under sub-rule (1) of Rule 97 of Order 21, C.P.C. in accordance with law. (6) The said learned Advocate cited another decision reported at AIR 1997 SC 856 (Brahmdeo Chaudhary v. Rishikesh Prasad Jaiswal and Anr.). In paragraph 4 of the said reports the Honble Supreme Court was pleased to observe, inter alia, as follows :- "4...............................A conjoint reading of Order XXI, Rules 97,98,99 and 101 projects the following picture : (1) If a decree-holder, is resisted or obstructed in execution of the decree for possession with the result that the decree for possession could not be executed in the normal manner by obtaining warrant for possession under Order XXI, Rule 35 then the decree-holder has to move an application under Order XXI, Rule 97 for removal of such obstruction and after hearing the decree-holder and the obstructionist the Court can pass appropriate orders after adjudicating upon the controversy between the parties as enjoined by Order XXI, Rule 97 sub-rule (2) read with Order XXI, Rule 98. It is obvious that after such adjudication if it is found that the resistance or obstruction was occasioned without just cause by the judgment-debtor or by some other person at his instigation or on his behalf then such obstruction or resistance would be removed as per Order XXI, Rule 98 sub-rule (2) and the decree-holder would be permitted to be put in possession. Even in such an eventuality the order passed would be treated as a decree under Order XXI, Rule 101 and no separate suit would lie against such order meaning thereby, the only remedy would be to prefer an appeal before the appropriate appellate Court against such deemed decree. (2) If for any reason a stranger to the decree is already dispossessed of the suit property relating to which he claims any right, title or interest before his getting any opportunity to resist or offer obstruction on spot on account of his absence from the place or for any other valid reason then his remedy would lie in filing an application under Order XXI, Rule 99, C.P.C. claiming that his dispossession was illegal and that possession deserves to be restored to him. If such an application is allowed after adjudication than as enjoined by Order XXI, Rule 98 sub-rule (1), C.P.C. the Executing Court can direct the stranger applicant under Order XXI, Rule 99 to be put in possession of the property or if his application is found to be substanceless it has to be dismissed. Such an order passed by the Executing Court disposing of the application one way or the other under Order XXI, Rule 98 sub-rule (1) would be deemed to be a decree as laid down by Order XXI, Rule 103 and would be appealable before appropriate Appellate Forum. But no separate suit would lie against such orders as clearly enjoined by Order XXI, Rule 101." (7) The observations of the Honble Supreme Court, as quote above, makes the position very clear, (8) The learned senior Advocate for the opposite parties cited a decision reported at (2005)1 Cal LJ (SC) 25 (P. Janardhana Rao v. Kannan and Ore) and referred to paragraph 8 of the said reports. Paragraph 8 of the said reports indicates that Order 21 Rule 97, C.P.C. takes into account a situation where the resistance to possession is offered by the judgment-debtor or any other person bound by the decree which will include the claim of a person who claims to be in possession in his own right and independently of the judgment-debtor but whose claim ex facie is unsustainable. Thus, it is clear that Order 21 Rule 97, C.P.C. is not restricted to a case of a stranger-third party to the decree exerting his right, title and/or interest. It will also appear from the said reports that evidence was adduced by the respective parties in the said case and the Honble Supreme Court was pleased to observe that the trial Court was right in examining the entire evidence on record and coming to its conclusion. Thus it is manifestly clear that the obstructionist in the application under Order 21 Rule 97 should be given an opportunity to file his or her written objection. (9) Another decision cited by the said learned senior Advocate of the opposite parties was the one reported at (1998)3 SCC 723 (Silverline Forum Pvt. Ltd. v. Rajiv Trust and Anr.). Thus it is manifestly clear that the obstructionist in the application under Order 21 Rule 97 should be given an opportunity to file his or her written objection. (9) Another decision cited by the said learned senior Advocate of the opposite parties was the one reported at (1998)3 SCC 723 (Silverline Forum Pvt. Ltd. v. Rajiv Trust and Anr.). The said learned senior Advocate referred to paragraph 14 of the said reports in support of his contention that the proceeding under Order 21 Rule 97 can be a summary proceeding. It is true that in the said paragraph the Honble Supreme Court was pleased to observe that the adjudication contemplated in Order 21 Rule 97, C.P.C. need not necessarily involve a detailed enquiry or collection of evidence and the Court can make the adjudication on admitted facts or even on the "averments made by the resister". This paragraph of the said reports does not in any way suggest that no opportunity of filing a written objection should be given to the opposite parties in the application under Order 21 Rule 97. On the other hand, it contemplates "averments made by the resister". (10) The learned senior Advocate for the opposite parties cited a decision reported at (1995) 5 SCC 238 (B. Gangadhar v. B. R. Rajalingam) and referred to paragraph 6 of the said reports in support of his contention that the executing Court has the power to remove unlawful or illegal construction made pendente lite so that the decree for possession or eviction, as the case may be, be effectively and completely executed and the delivery of possession is given to the decree-holder expeditiously. It further appears from the said paragraph that an observation has been made by the Honble Supreme Court in the said case that admittedly, pending suit the petitioner in that case had constructed shops and inducted tenants in possession without permission of the Court and the only course would be to decide the dispute in the execution proceedings and not by a separate suit. There cannot be any dispute with regard to such proposition of law but as the said paragraph indicates that the dispute has to be "decided" in the execution proceeding itself. If a decision has to be taken by the Court it is difficult to imagine that the opposite party should be debarred from filing his or her written objection. There cannot be any dispute with regard to such proposition of law but as the said paragraph indicates that the dispute has to be "decided" in the execution proceeding itself. If a decision has to be taken by the Court it is difficult to imagine that the opposite party should be debarred from filing his or her written objection. (11) The learned senior Advocate for the opposite parties cited a decision reported at (2009)1 Cal LJ (Cal) 936 (Nandalal Ghosh v. Saktipada Bag and Ors.). It appears from paragraph 14 of the said reports that the short question that was involved in the said case (a second appeal) was as to whether the appellant was entitled to addition of time taken in prosecuting an application under Order 9 Rule 13, C.P.C. as also the time taken in prosecuting an appeal against the order of rejection of such application and for a revisional application against the order dismissing such appeal. Thus, the only question of importance raised in the said case was with regard to the law of limitation. It appears from the perusal of the said reported case that the said reported case cannot be of much relevance in the matter of deciding the question involved in the present case, as indicated above. (12) In view of the discussions made above and particularly considering the provisions of Order 21 Rule 97, Rule 98, Rule 101 and the Form 40 of Appendix E of the Civil Procedure Code and also taking into consideration the observations of the Honble Supreme Court in Brahmdeo Chaudharys case (supra), as quoted above, this Court is of the view that the impugned order suffers from illegality and/or material irregularity in as much as no opportunity was given to the petitioner to file his written objection to the application under Order 21 Rule 97, C.P.C. Thus, the impugned order is set aside. The learned Court below will now give a reasonable opportunity to the judgment-debtor/ petitioner to file his written objection to the application under Order 21 Rule 97, C.P.C. and fix a date for the same. The learned Court below will now give a reasonable opportunity to the judgment-debtor/ petitioner to file his written objection to the application under Order 21 Rule 97, C.P.C. and fix a date for the same. Thereafter, the learned Court below shall decide the said application under Order 21 Rule 97, C.P.C. and dispose of the same as early as possible in accordance with law but, preferably, within four months from the date of communication of this order to the learned Court below without granting any unnecessary adjournment to any of the parties as it appears that already about 19 years have passed since the filing of the suit. The application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is disposed of. (13) There will, however, be no order as to costs. (14) Urgent Xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance of requisite formalities. (15) After the above Order is passed, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner shall put in the special messenger costs for communicating this order by special messenger to the learned Court below. Accordingly, the petitioner shall put in the special messenger costs within 5.8.09 so that this Order may be communicated to the learned Court below by special messenger.