IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.27 of 2009 VINAY PRASAD & ANR Versus MOST. FULWA DEVI & ANR ----------- 2 15.1.2009 Heard counsel for the petitioners. In the opinion of this Court, the impugned orders passed by the trial court as affirmed by the appellate court, does not suffer from any error much less jurisdictional error. It was the case of the petitioners themselves in their application filed on 2.9.2006 that Rakesh Kumar and others were in physical possession of the suit land which in the opinion of the petitioners, was illegal. It is this Rakesh Kumar whose application had led to institution of a proceeding under Order XXI Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short C.P.C.). The submission of the learned senior counsel of the petitioner that since Rakesh Kumar is a purchaser from the judgment debtor, he cannot have a better right than the judgment debtor and therefore, was not in a position to invoke the provision of Order XXI Rule 97 of the C.P.C. is to be only noted for its being rejected because the expression ‘any other person’ will definitely include even a purchaser or a judgment debtor. Infact the concept and categorization of person under Order-XXI 2 Rule 97 namely ‘judgment debtor’ and ‘any other person’ are absolutely distinct. That apart, when Order XXI Rule 97 C.P.C. has to reach to a definite out and has to be culminate in an order either under Rule 99 and Rule 100 of Order XXI C.P.C., the same cannot be summarily dismissed. The submission of Mr. Chaubey learned senior counsel for the petitioner that once an application with regard to the obstruction/resistance to possession of an immovable property in terms of Order XXI Rule 97 is filed and entertained at the instance of the other person, it need not be finally adjudicated and decided is also not acceptable to this court. The view taken by the lower appellate court in a very elaborate manner while affirming the findings of the trial court in this regard does not suffer from any error as all aspects of the matter have been considered by the two courts. That being so, this Court would not find any merit in this civil revision application. Realizing however that the execution proceeding of the year 2004 is still pending awaiting the disposal of the aforementioned objection of Rakesh Kumar, this Court would direct the court below to ensure that the same is disposed of within a period of three months from the date of 3 receipt/production of a copy of this order. With the aforementioned observations and direction, this application is accordingly dismissed. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)