JUDGMENT
R.L. Anand, J.
1. This is a Civil Revision and has been directed against the order dated 12,1.2000 passed by the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Patiala, who dismissed the objections of the petitioner under Order 21 Rule 99 C.P.C.
2. Some facts can be noticed in the following manner: Balkar Singh filed a suit against Ajmer Singh and Shamsher Singh. These defendants appeared but they did not appear after filing the written statement and were proceeded ex parte. As a result of that the suit was decreed against Shamsher Singh and Ajmer Singh for mandatory and permanent injunction. Shri Balkar Singh decree- holder, on the strength of the decree, filed an execution petition and he wanted to take the possession of the premises which is presently with the petitioner Sim Baljit Singh. The learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Patiala vide order dated 12.1.2000, dismissed the objections for the reasons given in para No, 4 of the order, which are reproduced as under :-
“After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the documents I am fully convinced with the argument raised by the learned counsel for the DH that there is no proof of ownership given by the objectors. More so, the objectors have also failed to produce anything on record to show that they have been in possession of the land in dispute for the last number of years. The objectors also failed to produce anything on file to show that how the G.P. was concerned with the land in dispute. As per the objector the property is denoted in the Khasra numbers. But it is disputed that whether this property is the same or not. More so the plaintiff has not sought any relief about the ownership of the land in question. Therefore, in view of the above discussion the objection petition filed by the objectors is dismissed with no order as to costs.”
3. I have heard Shri Bhag Singh. learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Shri Sarvjit Singh learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.
4. Order 21 Rule 99 of the C.P.C. lays down as follows :-“Dispossession by decree-holder or purchase
(1) Where any person other than the judgment-debtor is dispossessed of immovable property by the holder of a decree for the possession of such property or, where such property has been sold in execution of a decree, by the purchaser thereof, he may make an application to the Court complaining of such dispossession.
(2) Where any such application is made, the Court shall proceed to adjudicate upon the application in accordance with the provisions herein contained.”
5. Order 21 Rule 101 of the C.P.C. further lays down as follows :-
“Questions to be determined – All questions (including questions relating to right, title or interest in the property) arising between the parties to a proceeding on an application under Rule 97 or Rule 99 or their representatives, and relevant to the adjudication of the application, shall be determined by the Court dealing with the application and not by a separate suit and for this purpose, the Court shall, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law for the time being in force, be deemed to have jurisdiction to decide such questions.”
6. The combined reading of the above provisions would show that under Order 21 Rule 99 C.P.C., if any person other than the J.D. is actually dispossessed or in the process of being dispossessed, shows resistance to the decree-holder that he is occupying the premises as of his own right, he can prove so under this Rule. Moment the objections are filed by such a person under Order 21 Rule 99 C.P.C., it is the duty of the Court to determine those objections as per the provisions of Or-der21 Rule 101 C.P.C.
7. Determination means the actual determination like a
trial Court with regard to the contentions and pleas raised by the stranger. After the amendment of the C.P.C. these objections have to be adjudicated like an issue framed in a suit and straightway these objections cannot be disposed of. The impugned order would show that the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Patiala, did not frame any issue on the objections filed by the petitioner as to whether he was occupying the property of his own right or he was put up by the J.D. The case set up by the petitioner is that he is occupying this property in his own right and he is not liable to be ejected or evicted in the execution of the decree obtained by Shri Balkar Singh. Since no proper opportunity has been given to the petitioner and since there is no proper adjudication on behalf of the executing Court, therefore, the impugned order dated 12.1.2000, cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and the same is hereby set aside and the case is remanded back to the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Patiala, who is directed to frame a proper issue and then to give opportunities to both the parties to lead evidence in support of their case and decide the objections as early as possible. The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the Executing Court on 28.8.2000.
8. Order accordingly.
