Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 775 (ALL)

Mohd. Anas Khan v. Shahid Warsi

2016-03-02

SUNITA AGARWAL

body2016
JUDGMENT Sunita Agarwal, J. – Pursuant to the eviction decree dated 5.12.2009, an Execution Case No. 01 of 2010 was filed by the decree-holder in which an objection was put under Order 21, Rule 97 by one Mohd. Ahmad Jafri claiming to be in physical possession of the suit property. It appears that during the pendency of this application, a sale deed dated 24.8.2011was executed in favour of the revisionist by Mohd. Ahmad. Thereafter he filed application 22-Ga/1 for impleading him as co-applicant in the abovenoted application under Order 21, Rule 97 CPC. 2. The Court below has rejected the request of the revisionist/applicant on the ground that the applicant namely Mohd. Muin Ahmad Jafri had given up his right to object to the decree or obstruct to the execution of the eviction decree and further that the applicant is not a necessary party. The claim made by the applicant that he has been put in possession on the basis of the sale deed dated 24.8.2011 has been rejected on the ground that the provisions of Order 21, Rule 97 are not available to him. 3. In any case, it is admitted to the revisionist that he got the sale deed during the pendency of the application under Order 21, Rule 97 CPC filed by his vendor. 4. Perusal of Order 21, Rule 97 CPC makes it evident that the decree for possession of the immovable property can only be resisted or obstructed by a person who is in actual physical possession of the suit property, by moving an application complaining of such resistance or obstruction. 5. In order to adjudicate the right of such person who is in actual physical possession of the suit property, it is provided under Rule 97 (1) & (2) that the Court should adjudicate his rights in the execution proceeding in order to avoid the multiplicity of the proceedings. 6. In any case, under the sale deed dated 24.8.2011, the actual physical possession of the suit property could not be handed over to the revisionist and, therefore, the revisionist cannot press the application under Order 21, Rule 97 CPC filed his vendor. So far as the applicant namely Mohd. Ahmad Jafri is concerned, he has given up his right to resist or obstruct the eviction decree by execution of the sale deed. 7. So far as the applicant namely Mohd. Ahmad Jafri is concerned, he has given up his right to resist or obstruct the eviction decree by execution of the sale deed. 7. In this view of the matter no error is found in the order of the Court below. 8. The revision is devoid of merits and hence dismissed. Revision dismissed.