IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH:: HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT:: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.3808 OF 2008 Between: Gedala Gangaratnam …Petitioner A n d Muthina Satyanarayana and two others ..Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.3808 OF 2008 ORDER: This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 06-06-2008 in E.A.SR.No.5219 of 2008 in E.P.No.64 of 2001 in O.S.No.6 of 1996, on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem, wherein the said application filed by the petitioner herein (third party) under Order XXI Rules 99 and 101 CPC, was rejected. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents. Perused the record. 3. The second respondent herein obtained a decree in O.S.No.6 of 1996 against the third respondent and in execution thereof, the property of the judgment debtor was brought to sale and the same was purchased by the first respondent-auction purchaser in a Court auction sale. 4. It is not disputed that earlier the petitioner herein, who is none else than the third respondent-judgment debtor, filed E.A.No.87 of 2003 under Order XXI Rule 58 CPC claiming one-third share on behalf of her son and another one-third on behalf of her daughter and also charge for her maintenance and the said application was dismissed. It is stated that an appeal preferred against that order is pending in A.S.No.9 of 2008 before the Senior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem. It is also not disputed that the petitioner filed E.A.No.627 of 2005 under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC and the same was also dismissed. Subsequently, it appears that delivery of possession in favour of the auction purchaser was effected and the same was also recorded by the Court. Thereafter, the petitioner filed the present E.A.SR.No.5219 of 2008 under Order XXI Rule 99 CPC read with Rule 101 CPC. The execution court, by the impugned order, rejected the said application on the ground that the petition filed under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC in E.A.No.627 of 2005 having already been dismissed, the present application is not maintainable and secondly that possession was delivered by the Amin in pursuance of the warrant issued by the Court and as seen from the report of the Amin, the petitioner has voluntarily left the premises and even by removing the doorways, windows, electricity meter etc and so the present petition is not maintainable. 5. The scope of enquiry under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC and an application under Order XXI Rule 99 is distinct and different. Order XXI Rule 97 CPC contemplates an application by the decree holder or the purchaser for removal of resistance or obstruction by any person in obtaining the possession. Order XXI Rule 99 enables a person in possession of the property to file an application complaining about the dispossession by the decree holder or the auction purchaser. The dismissal of the application under Order XXI Rule 97, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, does not automatically render the application under Order XXI Rule 99 CPC futile. 6. The question now to be considered in the present case is whether the application filed under Order XXI Rule 99 CPC is maintainable and when the property was delivered through process of Court by the Amin in execution of the warrant issued by the Court. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was highhandedly dispossessed by the auction purchaser who indulged in acts of intimidation by removing the doorways, windows, electricity meter etc., but the report of the Amin as seen from the impugned order disclose that when the Amin went to the premises for effecting delivery of possession, the doorways, windows, electricity meter etc., were not there and they were already removed, obviously by the petitioner who vacated the premises. The report of the Amin did not support the contention of the petitioner that she was highhandedly dispossessed by the auction purchaser but, on the other hand, would show that the petitioner had already vacated the premises and the doorways, windows, electricity meter etc., were also found removed. Without going into the question as to who has removed the said items, it is, however, clear from the report of the Amin that they were already found removed by the time the Amin went there to effect delivery and the petitioner has already vacated the premises. The possession of the property was, therefore, delivered to the auction purchaser and the same was also recorded by the execution Court accepting the report of the Amin. 8. Under those circumstances, when possession was delivered through process of Court by the Amin duly executing the warrant issued, the question as to the dispossession of the petitioner by the decree holder or the auction purchaser does not arise and there is no occasion to make any enquiry as contemplated under Order XXI Rule 99 CPC. The execution Court has, therefore, rightly rejected the said application and the said order does not call for any interference. As the appeal in A.S.No.9 of 2008 preferred against the order in E.A.No.627 of 2005 is pending, the learned Senior Civil Judge shall dispose of the same on its merits without in any way influenced by any of the observations made hereinabove. 9. In the result, the civil revision petition is disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 28th March, 2011 Lrkm