AIR 2002 SUPREME COURT 3083 ::2002 AIR SCW 3548 ::2002 AIR - Jhar. H. C. R. 1049 ::2002 SCFBRC 620 ::(2002) 4 MahLR 703 ::(2002) WLC(SC)CVL 752 ::2002 (2) UJ (SC) 1249 ::2002 UJ(SC) 2 1249 ::(2003) 1 HinduLR 68 ::(2002) 4 CivLJ 842 ::(2002) 2 All RentCas 530 ::(2002) 3 CivilCourtC 391 ::2002 (7) SCC 50 ::2002 (4) RecCivR 1 ::(2002) 6 Scale 178 ::2002 All CJ 2 1259 ::(2002) 4 AllMR 545 (SC) ::2002 (4) All MR 545 ::2002 (49) All LR 278 ::2002 (4) All WC 3266 ::2002 (3) BLJR 2353 ::2002 BLJR 3 2353 ::(2002) 2 DMC 765 ::2002 (4) ICC 401 ::(2002) 3 EastCriC 189 ::2003 (2) MadLW 16 ::(2002) 3 JCR 95 (SC) ::2002 (3) JLJR 157 ::2002 (4) PatLJR 77 ::2002 (2) RenCR 340 ::2002 (4) SCJ 86 ::2003 (2) LandLR 204 ::(2003) 1 Crimes 45 ::2002 (2) UC 641 ::2002 (5) SLT 80 ::2002 (6) Supreme 109 ::(2003) 1 AllIndCas 33 (SC) ::2003 (1) AllIndCas 33 ::2002 (5) Andh LD 124 ::(2002) 6 JT 472 (SC) ::2002 (6) JT 472 ::2002 (8) SRJ 545

Supreme Court Of India

(From :- Jharkhand)*

Hon'ble Judge(s): R. C. Lahoti, Brijesh Kumar , JJ

Civil P.C. (5 of 1908) , O.21 R.97, O.21 R.99, O.21 R.101— Resistance to decree for possession - By third party claiming independent rights - Decree holder thereupon claiming writ of delivery of possession - Writ of delivery claimed, is in fact an application under O.21, R.97 could not have been decided without hearing objector - Refusing hearing on ground that objector had filed civil suit or that he should file objection under O. 21, R. 99 - Not proper. The appellant is a third party claiming independent right to property in question. The respondent is the holder of decree for possession. The decree could not be executed as regard one of the judgment debtor. The Judgment debtor claimed that possession could not be given as property belongs to a "Sufia". The Judgment debtor also filed an application under S. 151 on behalf of Sufia. That was rejected. The decree holder thereupon asked for issuance of writ of delivery of possession. The appellant requested the executing court to treat the said application moved by decree holder as a petition under Order 21, Rule 97 C.P.C. The executing court rejected the prayer of the appellant to treat the application as a petition under Order 21, Rule 97 CPC observing that appellant had no locus standi to raise objection and only remedy available to him would be to move the executing court under Order 21, Rule 99 CPC and or....