JUDGMENT Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. Heard Mr. J.C. Belwal, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Sudhir Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 23.05.2003 passed by Additional District Judge/IIIrd F.T.C. Dehradun in F.A.F.O. No.378 of 1987 (Original suit no.31/1958), Ram Krishan Ashram and others vs. Kishori Lal Sundriyal, whereby the first appellate court allowed F.A.F.O. No.378 of 1987 of the respondent nos.2 to 4/decree holders and set aside the judgment and order dated 20.02.1987 passed by the Ist Additional Civil Judge, Dehradun in civil misc. case no.07 of 1982 (execution case no.02 of 1973) (arising out of original suit no.31/1958). 3. Before deciding whether any substantial question of law(s) arises for consideration in this appeal, some facts are necessary to be narrated:- 4. According to the appellant in the year 1958 Captain J.M. Mitra filed a suit no.31 of 1958 against Smt. Dayali Devi and Smt. Deva Devi for recovery and possession of the property in suit. The said suit was decreed on 27.03.1963. On the basis of decree of the trial court, an execution application bearing no.9 of 1964 was moved for execution of the decree. The appellant has alleged that on 23.12.1976 the respondent/decree holder sold the property in question to Smt. Mundry Devi W/o Sadhu Ram. On 08.01.1997, the property in question was again sold by the legal heirs of Smt. Mundry Devi to Smt. Smita Pathak. 5. Thereafter, on 02.02.1973, the respondents/decree holder again filed an application for execution bearing no.02 of 1973 before the Ist Additional Civil Judge, Dehradun. On 18.02.1982, the respondents/decree holders also filed an application under Order 21 Rule 97 C.P.C. on the ground that the decree holder was obstructed by one Sri Kishori Lal (the appellant herein) in obtaining possession in a portion of the disputed property. Against the said application, the appellant filed his objection on 06.03.1982. 6. After hearing the appellant as well as the respondents/decree holders, learned Ist Additional Civil Judge, Dehradun, dismissed the application of the respondents/decree holders, holding the appellant to be tenant in the property of Ram Krishan Mission. Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 20.02.1987, which is a decree within the meaning of Order 21 Rule 103 of C.P.C., the respondents/decree holders preferred an appeal (FAFO NO.378 of 1997) Ram Krishan Mission vs. Kishori Lal Sundariyal. Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 20.02.1987, which is a decree within the meaning of Order 21 Rule 103 of C.P.C., the respondents/decree holders preferred an appeal (FAFO NO.378 of 1997) Ram Krishan Mission vs. Kishori Lal Sundariyal. The appeal was allowed by the Ist Additional District Judge, Dehradun on 23.05.2003. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant filed a writ petition before this Court, which was dismissed on the ground that the impugned order dated 23.5.2003 is appealable. Now, this second appeal has been filed by the appellant before this Court. 7. Sri J.C. Belwal, learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently contended that the respondents/decree holder has no right to continue with the proceeding while they had assigned their right in the property in execution. Learned counsel drew attention of the Court to Order 22 Rule 10 of C.P.C. In support of his contention, learned counsel also referred a judgment of the Allahabad High Court in the case of State of U.P. vs. Smt. Ram Sri and another, reported in A.I.R. 1976 Allahabad 121 and has relied upon para 8. 8. In reply thereto, Sri Sudhir Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance upon a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Smt. Saila Bala Dassi v. Smt. Nirmala Sundari Dassi and another, reported in A.I.R. 1958 Supreme Court 394, wherein at para-7, it has been held that the plaintiff who had already assigned his right can file an appeal. There is no prohibition in it in the Code. 9. I have also perused the judgment referred by the learned counsel for the appellant. At para-8 of the said judgment, it has been held that the right to file an appeal against a judgment or decree exists only in the person who is aggrieved or prejudiced thereby. The Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in the said paragraph has also quoted as under: “…A ‘person aggrieved’ must be a man who had suffered a legal grievance, a man against whom a decision has been pronounced…” 10. In view of judgment of the Apex Court (Supra), the assigner may also file an appeal and therefore it cannot be said to be a substantial question. The judgment cited by the learned counsel for the appellant is of no help to the appellant. 11. In view of judgment of the Apex Court (Supra), the assigner may also file an appeal and therefore it cannot be said to be a substantial question. The judgment cited by the learned counsel for the appellant is of no help to the appellant. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant has further contended that in the application under Order 21 Rule 97 of C.P.C., moved by the respondents/decree holder, the respondents/decree holder has nowhere stated when the obstruction was made by the appellant. Learned counsel submitted that the statutory limitation could be raised at any time when no facts are required to be scrutinised. 12. By a perusal of the objection filed against the application under Order 21 Rule 97 of C.P.C., it reveals that no such objection has been raised before the executing court. Therefore, the executing court was not bound to decide this issue as to whether the obstruction was made within a month. 13. So far as the objection of the maintainability of the application is concerned, that was also not taken before the executing court, but since this is a legal issue, it can be raised at any stage, even at the appellate stage. 14. So far as the dispute in the case at hand is concerned that whether the appellant is a tenant of Ram Krishan Mission or not, in this regard, the appellate court has given a categorical finding after appraisal of the evidence that the appellant was not a tenant in the part of the disputed property. This finding whether a person is a trespasser or a tenant is a finding of fact and cannot be decided in the second appeal unless the finding has been given, without any basis, by misreading of evidence. By a perusal of the judgment of the appellate court, it transpires that the above finding is based on cogent and reliable documentary evidence. 15. In the light of aforesaid, the Court is of the considered view that no substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal. 16. The appeal lacks merit and is dismissed. 17. Interim order passed by this Court dated 3.1.2013 is vacated. The amount deposited before the executing court, pursuant to the interim order dated 3.1.2013, shall be deposited with the Uttarakhand State Legal Services Authority by the executing court, for being utilised for mediation purpose. 18. 16. The appeal lacks merit and is dismissed. 17. Interim order passed by this Court dated 3.1.2013 is vacated. The amount deposited before the executing court, pursuant to the interim order dated 3.1.2013, shall be deposited with the Uttarakhand State Legal Services Authority by the executing court, for being utilised for mediation purpose. 18. Certified copy of the order shall be made available by Monday.