9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether a third party in possession of a property claiming independent right as a tenant, not party to a decree under execution, could resist such decree by seeking adjudication of his objections u/r 97 of Order 21 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC). Summary: 1. Procedural Law and Hierarchy of Courts: The judgment emphasizes the arduous journey through procedural law and the hierarchy of courts that seekers of justice must endure. The procedural laws are intended to filter out unwanted obstructions and ensure justice, but they also contribute to delays. The courts and legislatures are continually striving to interpret and amend procedural laws to expedite justice. 2. Case Background: The appeal arises from the judgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Civil Revision No. 406 of 1983. The primary issue is whether a third party, claiming independent right as a tenant and not party to the decree under execution, can resist the decree by seeking adjudication of his objections u/r 97 of Order 21, CPC. 3. Facts of the Case: Respondent No. 1 filed a suit for redemption of his mortgage against Respondent No. 2, which was decreed, directing the delivery of vacant possession of the mortgaged property. The appellants, not parties to the suit, obstructed the execution on the grounds of being tenants since 1952, prior to the mortgage in 1962. The Executing Court initially held that only symbolic possession could be given, but later, based on a Full Bench decision of the M.P. High Court, ruled that the appellants had no right to object u/r 97. 4. Legal Provisions and Interpretation: The judgment discusses the relevant provisions: Order 21, Rule 35 (delivery of actual possession), Rule 36 (symbolic possession for tenants), and Rule 97 (resistance or obstruction to possession). The 1976 amendment to Rule 97 expanded the scope to include adjudication of claims by "any person" resisting possession, including those not bound by the decree. 5. Full Bench Decision and Its Implications: The Full Bench decision in Smt. Usha Jain vs. Manmohan Bajaj held that the Executing Court has no jurisdiction to investigate objections by third parties u/r 97 unless applied by the decree-holder. This decision was challenged as it deprived third parties of their right to object before dispossession. 6. Supreme Court's Analysis: The Supreme Court analyzed the provisions and concluded that the 1976 amendment intended to allow adjudication of all disputes, including those by third parties, within the execution proceedings itself. The Court emphasized that the term "any person" in Rule 97 includes tenants and others claiming independent rights, allowing them to object and seek adjudication without waiting for dispossession. 7. Precedents and Conclusion: The Court referred to precedents like Noorduddin vs. Dr. K.L. Anand and Brahmdeo Chaudhary vs. Rishikesh Prasad Jaiswal, which supported the view that objections by third parties should be adjudicated within the execution proceedings. The Full Bench decision in Usha Jain was held to be incorrect. 8. Final Decision: The Supreme Court quashed the orders of the High Court and the Executing Court, directing the Executing Court to consider and dispose of the appellants' objections u/r 97 of Order 21, CPC, after giving an opportunity to the parties in accordance with the law. The appeal was allowed with costs on the parties.
|
