9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether a stranger to the decree can request the Executing Court to adjudicate upon his resistance and obstruction without first handing over possession and then moving an application under Order XXI, Rule 99 CPC. 2. Interpretation and application of Order XXI, Rule 35, Rule 97, Rule 98, Rule 99, and Rule 101 CPC. 3. Compliance with principles of natural justice in execution proceedings. 4. The procedural requirements for adjudicating claims of obstructionists in execution proceedings. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Stranger's Request for Adjudication Without Handing Over Possession: The appellant, claiming to be a stranger occupying the decretal premises, resisted the execution of the decree and requested the Executing Court to adjudicate his resistance without first handing over possession and then moving an application under Order XXI, Rule 99 CPC. The High Court and the Executing Court held that the appellant's only remedy was under Order XXI, Rule 99 after dispossession. The Supreme Court granted special leave to appeal and stayed dispossession. 2. Interpretation and Application of Relevant CPC Provisions: - Order XXI, Rule 35 CPC: This provision allows a decree-holder to obtain possession of immovable property by removing any person bound by the decree who refuses to vacate. The appellant resisted execution, claiming independent interest, making Order XXI, Rule 35 inapplicable as it pertains to judgment-debtors or those claiming through them. - Order XXI, Rule 97 CPC: This rule applies when a decree-holder is resisted or obstructed by any person in obtaining possession. The Court must adjudicate upon the application. The term "any person" includes strangers to the decree claiming independent rights. The appellant's resistance falls under this rule, necessitating adjudication before possession is delivered. - Order XXI, Rule 98 CPC: This rule outlines the orders the Court can pass after adjudicating the resistance or obstruction, including allowing the application and directing possession or dismissing the application. - Order XXI, Rule 99 CPC: This rule applies when a person other than the judgment-debtor is dispossessed by the decree-holder and seeks restoration of possession. The Supreme Court clarified that both pre- and post-dispossession claims by strangers must be adjudicated, and the appellant could not be forced to wait until dispossession to seek remedy. - Order XXI, Rule 101 CPC: This rule mandates that all questions relating to right, title, or interest in the property arising between parties in proceedings under Rule 97 or Rule 99 must be determined by the Executing Court and not by a separate suit. 3. Compliance with Principles of Natural Justice: The Supreme Court emphasized that denying the appellant's request for adjudication before dispossession violates principles of natural justice, as it would result in irreparable injury and the appellant being condemned unheard. The statutory scheme under Order XXI, Rule 97 ensures both the decree-holder and the obstructionist can have their grievances adjudicated before actual dispossession. 4. Procedural Requirements for Adjudicating Claims: The Supreme Court held that the Executing Court must follow the procedure under Order XXI, Rule 97 Sub-rule (2) and Rule 98 to adjudicate the appellant's claim. The Court must fix a date for hearing the application and adjudicate the claim on merits. The High Court's view that the appellant's only remedy was under Order XXI, Rule 99 was deemed unsustainable. Conclusion: The Supreme Court quashed the High Court's judgment and the Executing Court's order, remanding the matter to the Court of Munsif II, Monger to re-decide the decree-holder's application dated 6th May 1991 under Order XXI, Rule 97 for removal of obstruction. The Executing Court must adjudicate the appellant's claim within three months and not entertain objections from any other parties. The appeal was allowed with no order as to costs.
|
