(1) SA. 398.2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 398 OF 2008 Amrutrao S/o Shankarrao Deshmukh and others .. Appellants VERSUS Somnath S/o Shankarappa Ople and others .. Respondents WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6071 OF 2008 IN SECOND APPEAL NO. 398 OF 2008 Amrutrao S/o Shankarrao Deshmukh and others .. Applicants VERSUS Somnath S/o Shankarappa Ople and others .. Respondents Mr. I.S. Thorat, Advocate h/f. Mr. V.H. Dighe, Advocate for the appellants/applicants None present for respondent no.1 though served Mr. P.R. Nangre, Advocate for respondent no.2 Mr. V.C. Solshe, Advocate for respondent nos. 3 to 10 ... CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. DATED : 6TH JANUARY, 2010 P.C.:- 1] Shri Solshe is allowed to withdraw his appearance for the respondent no.2 in view of the instructions he received from the party. Copy taken on record. (2) SA. 398.2008 2] The appellants are challenging the concurrent findings of the lower Courts while rejecting their application which they filed under Order 21 Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure in Regular Darkhast no. 34 of 2003 pending in the Court of Civil Judge Junior Division, at Ambajogai. The respondents are decree holders. The appellants were never party to the suit. Although the appellants made an attempt to become party to the suit, their application to that effect was rejected. The respondents no. 1 and 2 claim ownership of the suit lands and sought injunction against the respondents 4 to 10 etc. Ultimately, the parties entered into a compromise and divided the lands amongst themselves and the darkhast was filed for getting the decree executed. During the pendency of this darkhast, the appellants filed an application as said above under Order 21 Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure for obstructing the execution of the decree. They said that they are the original owners of the suit lands and that their predecessor had leased the suit lands to the ancestors of respondents 1 and 2. They admitted that they are not in possession. They also contended that provisions of Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act and Hyderabad Inams Abolition and Cash Grants Act, are not applicable to the suit land. (3) SA. 398.2008 3] Both the Courts below concurrently held that since the appellants did not possess the lands, their application seeking obstruction is not maintainable. It was also observed by the Courts below that the appellants had already filed a Regular Civil Suit seeking possession of the suit lands against some of the respondents and it is pending before the civil Court. The question is whether the present Appeal deserves admission. The answer is in negative. The appellants admittedly are not in possession and, therefore they are unable to obstruct the decree which is sought to be executed amongst the respondents. The provisions of Order 21 Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure make it quite clear that a decree could be resisted or obstructed essentially by a person who is claiming possession of the land in question. In view of this, the Appeal does not deserve admission. The Second Appeal stands dismissed. Consequently, Civil Application no. 6071 of 2008 seeking stay does not survive and the same stands dismissed. Sd/- (A.V. NIRGUDE, J.) arp