In revision, the High Court upheld the dismissal of an application under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC filed by the revisionist claiming obstruction in execution. The Court found the petitioner abused the process of law due to failure to prove title or right over the property.
No order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Civil Revision No.27 of 2014
Siddharth …….Revisionist
Versus
Lt. Col. M.S. Baidwan (Retd.) & another …….Respondents
Present:
Mr. Siddhartha Singh, Advocate, present for the revisionist. Mr. Arvind Vashistha, Advocate, present for the respondents.
Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral)
This is a revision against the order dated 04.03.2014, passed by the Vth Additional District Judge, Dehradun, dismissing the application of the revisionist under Order 21 Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
“97 . Resistance or obstruction to possession of immovable property.- (1) Where the holder of a decree for the possession of immovable property or the purchaser of any such property sold in execution of a decree is resisted or obstructed by any person in obtaining possession of the property, he may make an application to the Court complaining of such resistance or obstruction.
(2) Where any application is made under subrule (1), the Court shall proceed to adjudicate upon the application in accordance with the provisions herein contained.
2
was decreed exparte on 18th November, 2002, in favour of the respondents/landlords. According to the present revisionist, defendant Neelima in Suit No.10 of 2000 who is known by different names, such as, Neelima, Seema Gosain, Seema Sandhu, Savita, Navjot etc.
3
It is also on record that earlier she was known by Asha Sharma.
4
the Code of Civil Procedure. This Court is totally in agreement with the finding of the Court below. This application (under Order 21 Rule 97) has been filed by the revisionist purely as an abuse of the process of law.
(Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 24.03.2014
ML
3 issues framed by the court
Whether an application u/s Order 21 Rule 97 CPC can be maintained when the applicant fails to prove adverse possession or authority to claim property against the decree-holder.
Whether a subsequent sale deed purporting to divest the decree-holder of their title can support a petition for obstruction under Order 21 Rule 97 without independent adjudication on its validity.
Whether the High Court should interfere with the dismissal of an abuse of process regarding pending possession claims.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Siddharth
Lt. Col. M.S. Baidwan (Retd.) & another
Sudhanshu Dhulia
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
