IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.390 of 2008 SARASWATI DEVI Versus RAM NARAIN SAH & ORS ----------- For the petitioner : M/s S.S. Dwivedi, Sr.Adv.,and Ranjan Kumar Dubey, Adv. For the opposite party no.1 : M/s S.K. Verma, Sr.Adv., Krishna Kant Singh and Jitendra Kishore Verma,Advocates. 03. 13.05.2008 Heard learned counsel for the objector-petitioner and learned counsel for the decree holder-opposite party. This civil revision has been filed on behalf of the objector-petitioner challenging order dated 31.01.2008 by which the learned Munsif-II, Madhubani, rejected her petition under Order21 Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed in Eviction Execution Case No. 10 of 2006. This matter arises out of Eviction Suit No. 01 of 2004 which was filed by plaintiff-opposite party no.1 for eviction of defendants(opposite party nos.2 and 3) on the ground of personal necessity of the plaintiff, default by defendant no.1 in making payment of rent and also for subletting the suit premises to defendant no.2. The said suit continued for about two years and was decreed on contest vide judgment and decree dated 23.09.2006 by the learned Munsif-II,Madhubani. The plaintiff-decree holder-opposite party no.1 filed Execution Case No.10 of 2006 for execution of the aforesaid eviction decree . It transpires that during the pendency of the said execution proceeding the petitioner who was not a party either to the suit or to the decree filed a petition under Order21 Rule 97 of the - 2 - Code of Civil Procedcure claiming that she is in possession of the suit premises in her own right and hence, she should not be ousted. She claimed that she had no knowledge about the suit and she only came to know about the execution case when a notice of the execution case was served upon her husband, who was defendant no.2 in the suit. It may be noted here that defendant no.1 Ramlakhan Sah had filed Eviction Appeal No. 05 of 2006 challenging eviction decree of the trial court and in that appeal the objector-petitioner had filed an intervention petition on 01.05.2007 which was rejected by the learned court below on 04.08.2007. The said order was challenged by the objector-petitioner in C.R. No. 2306 of 2007 which is pending in this court. It may also be noted that no petition has been filed in the eviction appeal for stay of further proceeding of Execution Case No.05 of 2006. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the objector-petitioner had filed Title Suit No. 06 of 2007 for declaration of her title and for other ancillary reliefs but when she learnt about the provision of Order 21 Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure, she withdrew the title suit and filed a petition in the execution case on 18.06.2007 under the provision of Order 21 Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The learned court below has considered the matter in detail and has found that if the objector-petitioner had any claim over the suit property she could have very well raised objection in - 3 - the eviction suit itself. It is also quite apparent that the objector- petitioner has claimed that she had knowledge about the execution case from the notice sent by the executing court to her husband defendant no.2 then it is quite apparent that she had also knowledge of the suit in which, notice was sent to her husband defendant no.2 and also to her father defendant no.1, who had appeared in the suit and had contested the same. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is quite apparent that defendant-judgment debtor and the objector-petitioner only want to delay the execution case on this flimsy ground. In the said circumstances, this court does not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order of the learned court below and accordingly, this civil revision is dismissed. harish (S.N. Hussain, J.)