C.R. No. 8477 of 2010 (O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No. 8477 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: January 18, 2011 Janamjit Singh …..Petitioner Vs. Dr.Kashmir Singh Sidhu and another …..Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI. -.- Present:- Mr.Ashok Singla, Advocate for the petitioner. -.- M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) Dr.Kashmir Singh Sidhu- respondent No.1 has obtained a decree for partition against respondent No.2-Jangir Singh Sidhu. The petitioner claims that he is in peaceful possession of the property as a tenant of Jangir Singh Sidhu and apprehends that he would be dispossessed from the property in execution of the decree in which he was not a party. He had filed objections under Order 21 Rule 58 CPC. The said objections have been dismissed vide order dated May 31, 2010. C.R. No. 8477 of 2010 (O&M) [2] Objections under Order 21 Rule 58 CPC can be field for adjudication of claim or objections to attachment of a property. It is not clear from the order as to whether any attachment proceedings had been initiated by the Executing Court or not. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the title of the objection petition has been wrongly mentioned by the objector and his counsel. It is submitted that the objections will be deemed to be objections by a person in possession of the property who is not a party to the decree. He being a third party to the decree apprehending dispossession could have filed objections under Order 21 Rules 97 and 99 CPC. I have heard counsel for the petitioner. There is no dispute regarding the legal proposition that a person in possession of the property and not a party to a decree has got a right to file objections under Order 21 Rules 97 and 99 CPC as per the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Inder Singh Vs. Piara Singh, 1993 (1) PLR 241. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the objections have not been properly considered and have been summarily dismissed. The trial Court was required to determine the question of rights and interests of the petitioner- objector in the property and safeguard his interests so that these may not be prejudiced by execution of the decree in which he was not a party. He submits that since there was not proper determination of the questions involved in the objection petition, the revision petition is maintainable. C.R. No. 8477 of 2010 (O&M) [3] I have heard counsel for the petitioner and carefully considered the facts and circumstances of this case. It is not disputed that objections are maintainable on behalf of the petitioner in case he is in actual physical possession as a tenant. Without expression of any opinion on the dispute whether he has connived with judgment debtor, it is observed that the petitioner being a stranger to the decree could file objections and any order passed by the Executing Court under Order 21 Rule 98 (1) CPC or Order 21 Rule 100 CPC would be treated as a decree under Order 21 Rule 103 CPC and would be appealable before the Appellate forum. In this context, reference can be made to the judgment of the Apex Court in Brahmdeo Choudhary Vs. Rishikesh Prasad Jaiswal, AIR 1997 SC 856. Since it is claimed by the petitioner that proper determination of the controversy has been avoided by the Executing Court, it is held that the order can be challenged in appeal before the District Judge and all the pleas taken up in this petition can be raised before the Appellate Court. The revision petition is dismissed as not maintainable with liberty to the petitioner to file appeal before the appropriate forum within a period of 15 days. In case the appeal is filed within 15 days, the Appellate Court will condone the delay taking into consideration the provisions of Section 14 of the Limitation Act. January 18, 2011 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE