CM No.8034-C of 2008 ::1:: and ESA No. 12 of 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM No.8034-C of 2008 and ESA No. 12 of 2008 Date of decision: 12.03.2010 Bhim Sain .. Appellant/Objector Versus Mohan Lal and others .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI a). Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? b). To be referred to the Reporters or not ? c). Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? Present:- Mr.Mukesh Yadav, Advocate for Mr.Jaivir Yadav, Advocate for the appellant Mr.N.S.Shekhawat, Advocate, for the respondents . . . AJAY TEWARI, J. (ORAL) CM No.8034-C of 2008 For the reasons recorded in the Civil Miscellaneous Application, same stands allowed and the delay of 15 days in filing the appeal stands condoned. ESA No. 12 of 2008 This appeal has been filed against the concurrent judgments of the Courts below dismissing the objection under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC filed by the appellant. The respondent had filed a suit against the brother and mother of the appellant directing them not to interfere in the disputed property, which was a passage and further praying for mandatory injunction directing them to remove the construction which have been made by them in the said property. The said suit was decreed and the appeal against the CM No.8034-C of 2008 ::2:: and ESA No. 12 of 2008 same was dismissed. In the meantime, the brother of the appellant also filed civil suit for permanent injunction restraining the Municipal Committee and the respondent from demolishing or in any way from interfering the building which was constructed by him in disputed property. That suit was also dismissed. In execution, the appellant filed objections to the effect that he had purchased the suit land from his father in the year 1979 and since he was not a party, the decree could not be executed against him. The learned Lower Courts below have found the objections to be false and mala fide. It has been noticed that earlier the brother of the appellant had also filed a suit on the same objections of having purchased the land by sale deed which had been executed along with the sale deed in favour of the objector. The number of that sale deed was 1158 dated 29.03.1979 and the other sale deed was 1159 dated 29.03.1979. Even after considering the sale by one Chunni Lal, it was held that property in dispute is a rasta sare aam. Keeping in view all these facts, the objections of the appellant were dismissed. Learned counsel has argued that objections under Order 21 Rule 97 are in the nature of a civil suit and therefore, the same could not have been rejected without framing issues. In my opinion, though, in normal circumstances, an objection under Order 21 Rule 97/99 should be decided as a civil suit, this proposition of law admits of some exception. In a case titled as Silverline Forum Pvt. Ltd. v. Rajiv Trust and another, AIR 1998 SC 1754, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a three Judges Bench judgment held as follows:- " It is clear that Executing Court can decide whether the resistor or obstructor is a person bound by the decree and he refuses to vacate the property . That CM No.8034-C of 2008 ::3:: and ESA No. 12 of 2008 question also squarely falls within the adjudicatory process contemplated in Order 21 Rule 97(2) of the Code. The adjudication mentioned therein need not necessarily involve a detailed inquiry or collection of evidence. Court can make the adjudication on admitted facts or even on the averments made by the resistor. Of course, the Court can direct the parties to adduce evidence for such determination if the court deems it necessary." The key, to my mind, is the satisfaction of the Court about the fides of the objection. In the present case, both the Courts below have been influenced by the fact that similar title was sought to be placed on the property in dispute by both the brothers. In the case of one brother, the plea of title was negatived. Consequently, the findings of the of the Courts below that these objections have been filed merely to further delay the proceedings cannot be held to be perverse. In the circumstances, this appeal as well as Civil Miscellaneous Application, if any, is dismissed. March 12, 2010 (AJAY TEWARI) Sukhpreet JUDGE