JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. O. Laskar, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. B. Kaushik, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This appeal, under Section 100, read with Section 151 of the C.P.C., is directed against the judgment and order dated 09.12.2024, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sribhumi (first appellate court), in Misc. Appeal No. 05/2021. 3. It is to be noted here that vide impugned Judgment and Order dated 09.12.2024, the learned first appellate court had upheld the impugned order, dated 26.08.2019, passed by the learned Munsiff No. 1, Karimganj (executing court), in Title Execution Case No. 05/2015, whereby the learned executing court has rejected the application, dated 14.08.2019, filed by the appellants under Rule 97 & 101 of Order XXI of the C.P.C. in the said Title Execution Case, arising out of Title Suit No. 136/2006. Background Facts:- 4. The background facts, leading to filing of the present appeal, are adumbrated herein below:- “One Bhola Nath Mazumder had instituted one title suit, being T.S. No. 136/2006 (T.S. 26/1996 or T.S. 06/2006) against Smti. Uma Rani Das and Others, for recovery for Khas possession and recovery of arrear rent from the defendants. The suit land, measuring 24 decimel (3 Kathas 13 Lechas) pertaining to survey Dag No. 3790 and 3793, under Khatian No. 2518, under ward No. 17 of Karimganj Municipality, and the suit house described in the schedule of the plaint, along with some other house, originally belongs to one Karunamoy Das, S/o Late Kamini Das; Jagadish Chandra Das, S/o Late Jamini Mohan Das; and Anil Chandra Das, S/o Late Aswini Kumar Das, who had land holders right and maliki right respectively. One Sri Ajit Kumar Das, duly constituted attorney of the said three owners, entered into a contract with one Taru Mazumdar (w/o plaintiff No. 1 and mother of plaintiff Nos. 2 – 5) to sell the suit land and the suit house and some other land, vide Binanama, dated 03.07.1988. But, the three owners had failed to execute the sale deed in favour of Taru Mazumder for which, she had preferred T.S. No. 37/1988, in the court of learned Assistant District Judge, Karimganj for specific performance of contract and execute the sale deed in her favour. The said suit was contested by defendant Karunamoy Das and Jagadish Chandra Das by filing their written statements along with their counter claims. The said suit was contested by defendant Karunamoy Das and Jagadish Chandra Das by filing their written statements along with their counter claims. But, the defendant No. 3, Anil Chandra Das and defendant No. 4, Ajit Kumar Das of the said T.S. No. 37/1988 did not contest the suit and therefore, the suit proceeded ex-parte against them. Thereafter, the learned trial court decreed the suit, vide judgment and decree dated 31.08.1995, in favour of plaintiff, Taru Mazumder and counter claims made by defendant Nos. 1 & 2 was dismissed. During the pendency of the title suit, the defendant No. 2, Jagadish Chandra Das died, but his legal heirs were duly substituted. Against the judgment and decree dated 31.08.1995, passed in the said T.S. No. 37/1988, no appeal had been preferred and the decree remained un- challenged. Subsequently, on the strength of the decree passed in the said suit, sale deed was executed on 31.05.1996, in favour of decree holder, namely, Taru Mazumder and the deed was also executed by Sub-Registrar Office, Karimganj on 19.06.1996, vide document No. 1223. The defendants were the monthly tenant in the suit land and the house, under the said vendors (Karunamoy Das, Jagadish Ch. Das and Anil Ch. Das) and therefore under the decree holder, Taru Mazumder on payment of monthly rent of Rs. 21/ as per Bengali Calendar month. Accordingly, by operation of law, the defendants (predecessor of the substituted defendants) became the Bharatia tenant under Taru Mazumder within the meaning of tenant as defined under Section 2(1) of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972. Taru Mazumder, being the owner of the suit property, sent notice, dated 31.06.1996, by registered post to the defendant, Jagadish Das, informing him about her ownership right over the suit property and requesting him to pay rent of the suit land and the suit house, vide holding No. 116 of Karimgani Municipal ward No. 17. But, he refused to receive those notice. However, the defendant (since deceased) failed to pay rent with respect to the suit holding, in favour of Taru Mazumder. Subsequently, Taru Mazumder died intestate on 05.06.1998, leaving behind the plaintiff as her legal heirs and accordingly, the plaintiff by virtue of inheritance became the owner of the suit land and the suit house in land holder and maliki right respectively. Subsequently, Taru Mazumder died intestate on 05.06.1998, leaving behind the plaintiff as her legal heirs and accordingly, the plaintiff by virtue of inheritance became the owner of the suit land and the suit house in land holder and maliki right respectively. After issuance of notice dated 31.06.1996, by Taru Mazumder, she made a demand on 01.03.1998, to the defendant for making payment of arrear rent of the suit house and the suit land. But, the defendant (since deceased) refused to pay rent. Subsequently, the defendant, denying the title of Taru Mazumder, instituted T.S. No. 12/1999, against her, seeking a decree for recovery of khas possession of the building and for setting aside the decree in Title Suit No. 37/1988. The said suit was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 12.06.2017. Thereafter, the defendants through their attorney had preferred an appeal being Title Appeal No. 04/2017. The said appeal was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 30.09.2022. Thereafter the attorney of the appellants had preferred one regular second appeal being RSA No. 4184/2023 along with one I.A. (C) 1500/2023 for condonation of delay of 101 days, where in notice was issued to the opposite parties. In the meantime, the respondent No. 1-4 along with other predecessors preferred a Title Suit against Jagadish Das the predecessor of respondent No. 5-9 for a decree of declaration of right, title and interest of Taru mazumdar, their predecessor in interest, over the suit property for recovery of khas possession by evicting the defendants and recovery of money towards compensation. The said suit was registered as Title Suit No. 26/1999 initially and lateron the said suit was re-numbered as Title Suit No. 136/2006. The said suit was decreed on 06.06.2011. Thereafter, the the respondents No.1 -4 had initiated title execution proceeding being Title Execution Case No. 05/2015, in the court of Munsif No.1, Karimganj to execute the decree dated 06.06.2011 passed in T.S.No. 136/2006. Thereafter, through Mukta Das, the newly appointed attorney, the appellants had filed an application dated 14.08.2019, being petition No. 1016/26, under Order 21 Rule 97 & 101 of the C.P.C. dated 14.08.2019 and another petition No. 1164/26 dated 22.08.2019, before the learned executing Court. Thereafter, through Mukta Das, the newly appointed attorney, the appellants had filed an application dated 14.08.2019, being petition No. 1016/26, under Order 21 Rule 97 & 101 of the C.P.C. dated 14.08.2019 and another petition No. 1164/26 dated 22.08.2019, before the learned executing Court. Thereafter, hearing learned counsel for both the parties, the learned executing court had dismissed both the petitions, vide order dated 26.08.2019, by holding that (i) the petitioners on earlier occasion also filed similar petitions with similar averments with a prayer to stay the execution proceeding, which led to the registration of Misc. Case No. 37/2019, and the same was disposed of vide order dated 15.05.2019, following the order of this court dated 15.07.2019, passed in CRP Case No. 92/2019, wherein it was directed that execution should be carried out without further delay. (ii) The same petitioners have prayed for staying the execution making similar prayer; (iii) The petitioners have informed the court that they are not bound by the decree put into execution and being the landlords of the judgment debtors, they have taken over possession of the decretal property from the judgment debtors on 21.08.2019. Thereafter the learned executing Court held that the petition No. 1016/26, under Order 21 Rule 97 & 101 of the C.P.C. is not maintainable inasmuch as the petitioners have themselves indicated that they have not been in possession of the decretal property and therefore, no question arises for them to invoke the provisions of Rule 97 by purportedly taking the possession of the property which, in fact, has no bearing on the proceeding for execution of the decree. Being aggrieved, the present appellants, preferred an appeal before the learned Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Sribhumi, and vide impugned order dated 09.12.2024, the learned Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Sribhumi, had dismissed the appeal by observing that the respondent Nos. 1 – 5 instituted a title suit, being T.S. No. 26/1999, before the learned Civil Judge and subsequently transferred and re-numbered as T.S. No. 06/2006 and then re-numbered as T.S. No. 136/2006, before the learned Court of Munsiff No. 1, Karimganj stating that both the plaintiffs and the defendants to the said suit were tenants under the present petitioners/appellants and their co-sharers, but neither the petitioners nor their co-sharers were arrayed in the said suit and thereby the respondent Nos. 1 – 5 keeping the petitioners/appellants in dark, fraudulently & collusively obtained decree dated 06.06.2011. Further, the learned appellate court had observed that the appeal was posted for hearing on number of occasions, but the appellant side had failed to produce any single paper in support of the contention. The appellant side did not adduce any evidence to prove its title over the suit land and following which there was also direction of High Court vide order dated 15.07.2019 in CRP No. 92/2019, to proceed with execution without any further delay. The learned appellate Court also observed that the appellants again filed petition No. 1016/26, before the executing court and the same was rejected on the ground that being the land lord of the judgment debtors, they have taken possession of the decreetal property from the judgment debtor on 21.08.2019 and have kept the same under lock and key. And clearly the petition No. 1016/26, under order 21 Rule 97 and 100 CPC is not maintainable in law in as much as the petitioners have themselves indicated that they have not been in possession of the decreetal property and therefore, no question arises for them to invoke the provision of Rule 97 by purportedly taking the possession of the property which in fact has no bearing on the proceeding of the execution of the decree. Thereafter, the learned appellate court had dismissed the appeal. Being highly aggrieved and dissatisfied, the present appellants have preferred the present appeal. Substantial Questions of Law:- 5. The appellants here in have suggested the following substantial questions of law :- “ (i) Whether the appellate court below committed error in law in dismissing the Misc. Appeal No. 05/2021 without deciding the question of maintainability of the application preferred by the appellants in the learned executing court below under the provision of Order XXI Rule 97 and 101 of CPC as third party seeking adjudication of their right, title and interest over the decreetal property? (ii) Whether the learned appellate court below committed error in law in dismissing the Misc. (ii) Whether the learned appellate court below committed error in law in dismissing the Misc. Appeal No. 05/2021 without dealing with the question of legality or otherwise of the refusal by the learned executing court to exercise jurisdiction vested upon it for determining right, title and interest of strangers who are in possession of the decreetal property in accordance with the provision of Order XXI Rules 97, 98 & 103 of CPC? (iii) Whether the learned appellate court below committed error in law in failing to consider whether the findings of the learned executing court to the effect that the application preferred by the appellants under Order XXI Rule 97 & 101 of CPC is not maintainable as the appellants themselves stated that the judgment debtors were in possession of the decreetal property as the tenants of the appellants is inconformity with law or not? (iv) Whether the possession of a property through tenants is possession in law for the purpose of maintainability of an application under Order XXI Rule 97 of CPC? (v) Whether the learned appellate court below committed error in law by framing one blanket point for determination instead of framing separate specific points for determination, as mandated under Order XLI Rule 31 of the CPC, inasmuch as the omission of a specific point relating to whether the rejection of the application preferred by the appellants under Order XXI Rule 97 & 101 of CPC on the ground of maintainability was justified or not and whether the refusal by the learned executing court to exercise its jurisdiction under Order XXI Rule 97 of CPC was justified or not? (vi) Whether the application preferred by the appellants in the learned executing court under Order XXI Rule 97 & 101 of CPC was not maintainable under the facts and circumstances of the instant case? and (vii) Whether the learned executing court below committed error in law by refusing to exercise its jurisdiction and to adjudicate upon the claims of the appellants as to their right, title and interest over the decreetal property being a third party to the suit and strangers to the decree?” Submissions:- 6. Mr. and (vii) Whether the learned executing court below committed error in law by refusing to exercise its jurisdiction and to adjudicate upon the claims of the appellants as to their right, title and interest over the decreetal property being a third party to the suit and strangers to the decree?” Submissions:- 6. Mr. Laskar, learned counsel for the appellants, submits that the learned first appellate court has failed to consider the contention made by the appellants and arrived at an erroneous finding and also failed to exercise its jurisdiction and also failed to give an opportunity to prove their claims of right, title and interest over the decreetal property. Mr. Laskar further submits that the learned first appellate court has dismissed the petition on the ground that the appellants were not in possession, while it is clearly averred that they are in possession through their tenants. Mr. Laskar further submits that the learned first appellant court has also failed to consider the Rule 103 of Order XXI of the CPC, which envisages a regular adjudication to determine right, title and interest over the decreetal property. Further Mr. Laskar submits that the learned executing court had failed to take note of the observation made by this court in CRP No. 92/2019. Under such circumstances, it is contended to admit this second appeal on the aforementioned substantial questions of law. 7. On the other hand, Mr. Kaushik, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed the contention made in this appeal and submits that admittedly, the appellants were not in possession of the suit property and though they have claimed to be the real owner/landlords of the suit property, they have failed to produce any documents in respect of the same. Mr. Kaushik further submits that since they were not in possession of the suit property, the application, under Rule 97 & 101 to Order 21 of the CPC is not at all maintainable and that no substantial question of law is involved here in this appeal and therefore, it is contended to dismiss the same. 7.1. Mr. Mr. Kaushik further submits that since they were not in possession of the suit property, the application, under Rule 97 & 101 to Order 21 of the CPC is not at all maintainable and that no substantial question of law is involved here in this appeal and therefore, it is contended to dismiss the same. 7.1. Mr. Kaushik has also pointed out that the vide order dated 10.08.2018, passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court, has disposed of the I.A.(C) No. 1932/2016 linked with MC 250/2016, with a direction to the applicants of the said I.A. fixing 31.12.2018, as the deadline to vacate the suit premises and they were also specifically directed that they should undertake not to part with the possession of the suit premises or to create any third party interest on the said suit premises or to induct any sub-tenancy into the suit premises. And on the face of the aforesaid direction, the conduct of the appellants are illegal and arbitrary. 7.2. Mr. Kaushik has also referred to a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sadashiv Shyama Sawant (dead) through legal heirs and Others vs. Anita Ananta Sawant , reported in (2010) 3 SCC 385 , in support of his submission. But, it appears that this decision relates to maintainability of suit by landlord for dispossession of tenants by third party under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, however, the facts of the present case is distinguishable from that case and as such, this Court afraid, said decision may not advance the argument of Mr. Kaushik, the learned counsel for the respondent. Consideration of this court :- 8. Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties, I have carefully gone through the memo of appeal as well as the suggested substantial questions of law and also gone through the impugned judgment and order dated 09.12.2024, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sribhumi (first appellate court), in Misc. Appeal No. 05/2021 and also gone through the case laws referred by the learned counsel for the respondents. 9. Also, I have gone through the relevant provision of law. i.e. Rule 97 -101 of Order XXI CPC. It appears that under Rule 97, the court, on receipt of an application, shall proceed to adjudicate the application in accordance with Rule 101. 9. Also, I have gone through the relevant provision of law. i.e. Rule 97 -101 of Order XXI CPC. It appears that under Rule 97, the court, on receipt of an application, shall proceed to adjudicate the application in accordance with Rule 101. The court will hold a full- fledged inquiry and determine all questions including the question relating to right, title or interest in the property arising between the parties to the proceeding or other representatives. After such determination, the Court has to adopt following course of action:- (a) allow the application of the decree-holder or auction-purchaser directing that the applicant be put into possession of the property; or (b) dismiss the application; or (c) pass such order as it deems fit; Where the court is satisfied that the resistance or obstruction was occasioned without any just cause by the judgment debtor or by some other person at his 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 order the applicant to be put into possession of property and if the applicant is resisted or obstructed even thereafter in obtaining possession, the Court may, at the instance of the applicant, order the obstructor to be detained in civil prison up to 30 days. 10. In the instant case, from the documents placed on record, it appears that a coordinate Bench of this Court, in its order dated 10.08.2018, passed in I.A.(C) No. 1932/2016, while dismissing the interlocutory application, observed that the decree passed in T.S. No. 136/2006 cannot be stalled indefinitely and therefore, granted time till 31.12.2018, to vacate the suit premises under following conditions:- “ 1. The applicant/petitioner shall file an undertaking in form of an affidavit before the Court of learned Munsiff No. 1, Karimganj to voluntarily vacate the suit premises on 31.12.2018, and to handover physical possession of the suit premises to the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 on or before 31.12.2018. 2. During the said period, the petitioner shall also undertake to pay rent to the respondents in cash and on receiving of the said rent, anyone of the respondents shall acknowledge the receipt of rent from the petitioner. However, such payment of rent shall not create any fresh relationship between the parties or to extend the tenancy in any manner. 3. During the said period, the petitioner shall also undertake to pay rent to the respondents in cash and on receiving of the said rent, anyone of the respondents shall acknowledge the receipt of rent from the petitioner. However, such payment of rent shall not create any fresh relationship between the parties or to extend the tenancy in any manner. 3. The petitioner should undertake not part with possession of the suit premises or to create any third party interest on the said suit premises or to induct any sub-tenancy into the suit premises.” 10.1. After the said order, being passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court, one Civil Revision Petition, being CRP No. 92/2019 was preferred and the same was disposed of vide order, dated 15.07.2019, directing the executing court to proceed with the execution without any further delay. 10.2 . It also appears that thereafter, the present appellants had preferred the application No. 1016/26 and 1164/26, praying for staying the execution and then the learned executing court taking note of the fact that similar petition preferred by the petitioner on earlier occasion, upon which Misc. Case No. 37/2019 was registered and that the same was rejected also considering the fact that the petitioners have admittedly obtained possession of the suit property and thereafter held that the petitions are not maintainable and thereafter, dismissed the same. 10.3. It is also to be noted here that the learned first appellate court after hearing learned counsel for both the parties, arrived at a finding that the petitions filed by the petitioners are not maintainable and they failed to produce a single document in support of their claim that they are the owner of the suit property in spite of getting sufficient opportunity to do so and that the respondent Nos. 1 – 5, keeping them in dark, fraudulently obtained the decree in T.S. No. 136/2006 and on such count, dismissed the appeal. 11. 1 – 5, keeping them in dark, fraudulently obtained the decree in T.S. No. 136/2006 and on such count, dismissed the appeal. 11. Thus, from the aforesaid discussion and from the documents placed on record, following facts and circumstances emerges:-- (i) The appellants were not a party to the decree; (ii) Admittedly, the present appellants obtained possession of the suit property during pendency of the execution proceeding; (iii) There was specific direction of this court in I.A. (C) No. 1932/ 2016 to the said petitioners for filing an undertaking before the Court of learned Munsiff No. 1, Karimganj to voluntarily vacate the suit premises on 31.12.2018, and to handover physical possession of the suit premises to the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 on or before 31.12.2018. (iv) There was also direction that the petitioner should undertake not to part with possession of the suit premises or to create any third party interest on the said suit premises or to induct any sub-tenancy into the suit premises. 1 to 5 on or before 31.12.2018. (iv) There was also direction that the petitioner should undertake not to part with possession of the suit premises or to create any third party interest on the said suit premises or to induct any sub-tenancy into the suit premises. (v) These directions were disobeyed by the petitioner of that interlocutory application with impunity and third party interest on the said suit premises was created; (vi) The appellants, are rank trespasser, under the judgment debtor, (vii) The appellant side did not submit a single piece of paper in support of its contention; (viii) The appellants also did not adduce any evidence to prove its title over the suit land or to prove how the decree holder of Title Execution Case No. 05/2015, obtained the decree fraudulently in spite of setting ample opportunity, (ix) Though the learned appellate court had not framed specific point for determination as to whether the rejection of the application preferred by the appellants under Order XXI Rule 97 & 101 of CPC on the ground of maintainability was justified or not and whether the refusal by the learned executing court to exercise its jurisdiction under Order XXI Rule 97 of CPC was justified or not, a discussion appears to be directed in that regard and a finding is also recorded, and as such, non framing of specific point for determination to that effect, would not prove to be fatal in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mrugendra Indravan Mehta vs. Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation reported in Civil Appeal No. 16956-16957 of 2017, wherein it has been held that - It is no doubt desirable that the appellate court should comply with all the requirements of Order 41 Rule 31 CPC. But if it is possible to make out from the judgment that there is substantial compliance with the said requirements and that justice has not thereby suffered, that would be sufficient and on such count non-compliance with the provisions may not vitiate the judgment and make it wholly void. 12. Thus, a careful perusal of the impugned order dated 26.08.2019, passed by the learned executing court, in Title Execution Case No. 05/2015 and also examining the judgment, so passed by the learned first appellate court in Misc. 12. Thus, a careful perusal of the impugned order dated 26.08.2019, passed by the learned executing court, in Title Execution Case No. 05/2015 and also examining the judgment, so passed by the learned first appellate court in Misc. Appeal No. 05/2021, in the light of the aforementioned facts and circumstances and further from the documents placed on the record and also taking note of the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties, this Court is of the view that no substantial questions of law, as suggested by the learned counsel for the appellants in the memo of appeal, appears to be involved here in this appeal and accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed 13. The parties have to bear their own costs.