JUDGMENT 1. These two writ petitions arise out of the order passed in Ex.C.No.2637/2018 pending on the file of Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-67) and therefore they are heard together and disposed of by a common order with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2. Facts leading to filing of these two petitions narrated in brief are, the petitioner in W.P.No.19363/2019 had filed Ex.C.No.2367/2018 before the Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as execution Court) to execute the award dtd. 6/12/2016 passed by the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Chamrajpet, Bengaluru against respondents no.1 and 2 herein. 3. In the said proceedings the third respondent who is the wife of the first respondent herein had filed two separate applications under Order 21 Rule 59 read with Sec. 151 of CPC and under Order 21 Rule 97 and 98 read with Sec. 151 of CPC. The said applications were opposed by the decree holder/petitioner herein. However, executing Court had allowed the application filed under Order 21 Rule 59 read with 151 of CPC and proceeded to hold an enquiry on the applications filed by respondent no.3 herein under Order 21 Rule 97 and 98 of CPC and being aggrieved by the said order dtd. 2/3/2019, the decree holder has filed W.P.No.19363/2019. 4. W.P.No.9880/2019 has been filed by the first judgment debtor challenging order dtd. 22/1/2019/23/1/2019 in execution case No.2637/2018 by the executing Court as per Annexure -B, on the ground that the said order issuing proclamation and sale warrant of the mortgaged property has been passed without fixing the valuation and without passing order of attachment in respect of the said property. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.19363/2019 submits that the third respondent is none other than the wife of the first respondent who is the judgment debtor no.1 and she has not claimed any independent right over the mortgaged property, in respect of which she has raised obstruction before the execution court under Order 21 Rule 97 of CPC. He submits that unless the obstructer has got an independent right over the property of which possession is sought to be taken by the decree holder, the executing Court was not justified in entertaining such an application. He submits that unless the obstructer has got an independent right over the property of which possession is sought to be taken by the decree holder, the executing Court was not justified in entertaining such an application. He submits that the third respondent who is none other than wife of the first respondent has not placed any material before the execution Court to show that she has got independent right over the property, which is sought to be brought for sale. In support of his contentions he has relied upon the judgment of coordinate Bench of this Court in case of SULOCHANA W/O. RAMARAY VERNEKAR AND OTHERS VS. DEVAPPA BADIGEPPA HUDELAKOPPA AND OTHERS reported in 2021 (2) KLR 310 and in the judgment passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court on 5/4/2016 in RFA No.1412/2011. 6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.3 has raised preliminary objection with regard to the maintainability of this writ petition on the ground that petitioner ought to have preferred revision under Sec. 115 of CPC and writ petition as against the impugned order is not maintainable. He has relied upon the judgment in the case of SHIV SHAKTI COOP.HOUSING SOCIETY, NAGPUR VS. SWARAJ DEVELOPERS AND OTHERS reported in 2003 (6) SCC 659 , in support of his arguments. He further submits that the award passed in favour of the petitioner is a collusive award and execution has now been filed only with a sole intention to dispossess the third respondent to whom the property in question has been given by her husband/judgment debtor no.1 for her maintenance purpose. He submits that the third respondent's rights are to be adjudicated before the executing Court in an enquiry as provided under Order 21 Rule 97 and 98 of CPC. Therefore, the executing Court was justified in passing the order impugned. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.9880/2019 has referred to the order dtd. 22/1/2019/23/1/2019 passed by the executing Court and submits that the executing Court had issued the proclamation and sale warrant in respect of the property in question without passing order of attachment and without passing any order with regard to the valuation of property which is brought for sale. 22/1/2019/23/1/2019 passed by the executing Court and submits that the executing Court had issued the proclamation and sale warrant in respect of the property in question without passing order of attachment and without passing any order with regard to the valuation of property which is brought for sale. He submits that the provisions of Order 21 Rule 54 and 66 are mandatory in nature and without compliance of the same the executing Court could not have passed the impugned order and in support of his argument he has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of MAHAKAL AUTOMOBILES VS. KISHAN SWAROOP SHARMA reported in 2008 (13 )SCC 113. 8. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments addressed on behalf of parties and also perused the material on record. 9. The preliminary objection raised with regard to the maintainability of the writ petition is merit less and is liable to be rejected, since the order that could be passed in favour of the petitioner herein will not give any finality to the execution proceedings in which the impugned order is passed. Therefore, the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shiv Shakthi Housing Society, Nagpur (supra) to contend that the writ petition is not maintainable cannot be made applicable to the facts of this case. 10. The undisputed facts are that the petitioner Cooperative Society has obtained the award under Sec. 70 of the Karnataka Co-Operative Societies Act, 1959 against respondent nos.1 and 2 herein and for the purpose of executing said award it had initiated Ex.C.No.2637/2018 before the executing Court and in the said proceedings respondent no.3 herein has filed two separate applications, are under Order 21 Rule 59 read with 151 of CPC and another application under Order 21 Rule 97 & 98 read with 151 of CPC. Both the applications were opposed by the petitioner by filing objections. 11. It is not in dispute that the third respondent is the wife of the first respondent. Though she has contended that she is living separately and the relationship between her and her husband is strained and she has been put in possession of the property in question by her husband for her maintenance purpose, she has not produced any documentary evidence in support this arguments addressed on behalf of her. Though she has contended that she is living separately and the relationship between her and her husband is strained and she has been put in possession of the property in question by her husband for her maintenance purpose, she has not produced any documentary evidence in support this arguments addressed on behalf of her. She has also failed to produce any material before this Court to show that her relation with her husband is strained and they have separated from each other. 12. Though learned counsel for third respondent had sought to place reliance on the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.1638/2018 in support of his case to prove that the relationship of the third respondent with the first respondent was strained and they are residing separately, reading of the said order would go to show that no opinion is expressed in the said case on the merits by this Court and the said petition was dismissed by this Court as withdrawn, keeping open all the contentions of both the parties and the petitioner herein was granted liberty to initiate proceedings against the first respondent herein to recover the amount alleged to be due in accordance with law. 13. A coordinate Bench of this Court in RFA No.1412/2011, wherein the wife and children of the decree holder had tried to obstruct the execution of the decree by filing application under Order 21 Rule 97, 98 and 99 of CPC has observed as follows: "Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and that the appellants are none other than the wife and children of Vishwagnachar the brother of Sugnanachari and Rajasekhar Murthy, they were fully aware of the proceedings that were going on between the parties and therefore the question of holding enquiry as contemplated under Order XXI Rule 97-102 CPC is not called for." 14. In the case of SULOCHANA W/O. RAMARAY VERNEKAR AND OTHERS VS. DEVAPPA BADIGEPPA HUDELAKOPPA AND OTHERS reported in 2021 (2) KLR 310 in paragraph no.8 it is observed as follows: "8. In the present case on hand, the application filed by first respondent lacks ingredients enumerated under Order 21 Rule 97 of CPC. In the case of SULOCHANA W/O. RAMARAY VERNEKAR AND OTHERS VS. DEVAPPA BADIGEPPA HUDELAKOPPA AND OTHERS reported in 2021 (2) KLR 310 in paragraph no.8 it is observed as follows: "8. In the present case on hand, the application filed by first respondent lacks ingredients enumerated under Order 21 Rule 97 of CPC. The reasons assigned by the Execution Court that once there is an obstruction application, the same has to be dealt in and the rights of the parties are to be examined is palpably erroneous, perverse and the said reasoning arrived at by the Execution Court if accepted, would result in miscarriage of justice where decree holder is moving heaven and earth to secure the fruits of the decree. What the executing court lost sight is that, it is only in those cases where third party is in possession and is having an independent right over can maintain third party application and object and can seek adjudication when sought to be dispossessed. In catena of judgments, the Hon'ble Apex Court and this court have held that Rule 97 of Order 21 of CPC cannot be converted into a tool in the hands of high handed and self seeking person. The scheme of Order 21 Rule 97 is to see that bonafide person is not thrown out by the decree holder. The person while obstructing third party applicant has to prove not only his possession but he has to establish further that his possession was not obtained from or under judgment debtor. In the present case on hand, the relief sought by the obstructer which is culled out supra and examination-in-chief clearly indicates that respondent No.1 is seeking possession from judgment debtor in execution proceedings on the basis of will alleged to have been executed by original plaintiff and is asserting title on the basis of the Will executed by original plaintiff Nagesh Vernekar. Such a casual approach adopted by the Execution Court cannot be appreciated by this Court." 15. Such a casual approach adopted by the Execution Court cannot be appreciated by this Court." 15. Even in the case on hand, it is the wife of the first judgment debtor who has filed the application under Order 21 Rule 97 and 98 of CPC raising obstruction to the execution proceedings and she has not produced any material to show that she has got any independent claim or right over the property, which is sought to be brought for sale by the decree holder and from the material available on record it is very clear that the alleged possession of the property has been obtained by her through/under her husband/the judgment debtor no.1. Unless the obstructer produces the prima facie material before the executing Court to show that the obstructer has got an independent right over the property of which the possession is sought to be taken by the decree holder and that the obstructer does not claim through or under the judgment debtor, the trial Court cannot entertain applications under Order 21 Rule 97 and 98 of the CPC. Under the circumstances I am of the considered view that the trial Court/executing Court has erred in passing the order impugned dtd. 2/3/2019 on the application filed by the third respondent under Order 21 Rule 59 read with sec. 151 of CPC and thereafter proceeding to hold an enquiry on application filed by respondent no.3 under Order 21 Rule 97 and 98 read with Sec. 151 of CPC. 16. Insofar as W.P.No.9880/2009 is concerned the executing Court while passing the impugned order at Annexure -G has failed to consider that the valuation of the property, was not fixed and no order of attachment was passed against the property sought to be brought for sale. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of MAHAKAL AUTOMOBILES VS. KISHAN SWAROOP SHARMA reported in 2008 (13 )SCC 113 has observed that the compliance of Rule 54 and 56 of Order 21 of Civil Procedure Code was mandatory and the order passed by the executing Court for proclamation and for sale of property without compliance of the said rules would render the sale void and such a sale would be nullity. Under the circumstances, I am of the considered view that the impugned order passed by the executing Court challenged in W.P.No.9880/2019 cannot be sustained. Under the circumstances, I am of the considered view that the impugned order passed by the executing Court challenged in W.P.No.9880/2019 cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the following: ORDER Writ petitions are allowed: (a)The order dtd. 2/3/2019 passed on the application filed by the third respondent under Order 21 Rule 59 read with Sec. 151 of CPC is quashed and consequently, the application filed by the third respondent under Order 21 Rule 97, 98 and 99 read with Sec. 151 of CPC is rejected as not maintainable. (b)The order dtd. 22/1/2019/23/1/2019 passed by the executing Court on the application filed by the decree holder under Order 21 Rule 54 of CPC is quashed and the matter is remitted to the executing Court to consider the said application afresh in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mahakal Automobiles (supra).