Civil Revision No.6570 of 2007 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.6570 of 2007 (O&M) Date of Decision 14.07.2009 Maya Ram ...... Petitioner VERSUS M/s Swastic Empoules and others ...... Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Amar Vivek, Advocate with Ms.Rachna Arora, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Arun Jain, Senior Advocate, with Mr.Amit Jain, Advocate, for respondent No.1. ***** A.N.JINDAL, J(ORAL): Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 09.10.2007, passed by Addl. District Judge, Yamuna Nagar, whereby the order passed by the Executing Court has been set aside and the contempt petition regarding violation of the order dated 09.09.2005, has also been dismissed vide order passed by the Appellate Court in the said appeal. Having perused the impugned orders and after hearing the rival contentions, Lower Appellate Court while deciding the appeal against the objection petition, observed as under:- “Anyhow, it is seen that objection petition has certain mixed questions of law and fact which should not have been decided without taking evidence. Summary disposal of the objection, in any way, did not do justice in the real sense of the word.” Civil Revision No.6570 of 2007 (O&M) 2 Consequently, the Appellate Court remitted the case back to the trial Court to decide the objection petition on merits. There is no denying a fact that this objection petition has been filed in execution after the sale was confirmed by the Court and warrants regarding delivery of possession were issued. Thus, objections are allegedly under Order 21 Rule 58 read with Section 97(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure. The objector claims himself to be a proposed vendee under an agreement regarding which the suit is already pending between the objector and Dalel Singh judgment debtor. The decree holder, now petitioner, is also a party in the said suit. The claim of the objection is only that since he has a bonafide right of specific performance, therefore, this decree could not be executed. He has also claimed a tenancy over the land and both these issues are to be decided in that suit. Now the first Appellate Court, without examining the provisions of Order 21 Rule 58 as well as the Rule 97, has remitted the case back for disposal of the same on merits. Order 21 Rule 58 provides two sets of procedures for disposal of the objection petition. If the court reaches the conclusion that objection petition has some merits then the Court is to decide after recording the evidence of both the parties, whereas the Court can refuse to entertain the objection petition on the following grounds:- '(a) where, before the claim is preferred or objection is made, the property attached has already been sold; or (b) where the Court considers that the claim or objection was designedly or unnecessarily delayed.' In this case, the Court has neither observed if property has already been sold before the claim or objection has been preferred or the objection petition has been filed just to cause unnecessary delay. Civil Revision No.6570 of 2007 (O&M) 3 As regards the Rule 97(2), it is reproduced as under:- '(2) Where any application is made under sub-rule (1), the Court shall proceed to adjudicate upon the application in accordance with the provisions herein contained. On perusal of Rule 97 of order 21 it appears that it was incorporated in the code for protection of the rights of the decree holders and the third party objections could be decided under Rule 99 of the Code. Anyway, the plaintiff has already filed a suit for establishment of his rights in the property. However, the fact is that the first Appellate Court has not examined the provisions of Order 21 before remanding the case by directing the parties to lead evidence and to decide the objection petition on merits after recording the evidence of the parties. It was further urged that contempt petition could not be dismissed for want of prosecution as the counsel in the appellate Court did not object to raise the arguments rather he actually advanced arguments, but the Court has made incorrect observations. In view of the fact that the counsel addressed the arguments in the connected case, it cannot be assumed that he did not argue in this case, as such, the second order dismissing the contempt petition also cannot be sustained. Resultantly, this revision petition is accepted. Impugned order is set aside and the first Appellate Court is directed to proceed in accordance with law. Parties are directed to appear before the First Appellate Court on 17.09.2009. (A.N.Jindal) Judge 14.07.2009 mamta-II