C.R. No. 4886 of 2008 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 4886 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision: January 19, 2009 Hukam Chand and others .. Petitioners v. Santosh Kumari and others .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. C. M. Munjal, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri Vikram Bajaj, Advocate for respondent No. 1. .. Rajesh Bindal J. Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 26.7.2008, passed by the learned Executing Court, whereby the objections filed by the petitioner in execution of decree passed in favour of respondent No.1 were dismissed summarily. Briefly, the facts are that in a suit for possession filed by respondent No.1, a decree was passed against Judgment Debtor- Didar Singh on 5.6.1998, which was upheld upto this Court. The execution was filed by respondent No.1 seeking possession of the property. However, in the execution, the petitioners filed objections claiming that in fact they are the owners of the property and the suit was filed by respondent No.1 without she being the owner thereof and the decree should not be executed in her favour. The objections were dismissed summarily vide the impugned order. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the objections filed by the petitioners under Order 21 Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure could not have been rejected by the learned Executing Court in a summary manner, as those were required to be considered as a suit; the issues were required to be framed and final disposal thereof only after affording opportunity of leading evidence to the petitioners/objectors. The learned court below having not afforded opportunity of leading evidence to the petitioners has committed grave illegality. Accordingly, the impugned order deserves to be set aside and the matter remitted back to the learned Executing Court for reconsideration and permitting the petitioners to lead evidence C.R. No. 4886 of 2008 [2] to justify their claim. Reliance has been placed upon Noorduddin v. Dr. K.L.Anand, 1995(2) RRR 556. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.1 submitted that the petitioners have not mentioned as to under what provisions of law they had filed the objections. In fact, Darbari Lal was the owner of the property and respondent No.1 inherited the property from him. The petitioners are merely strangers to the decree and they cannot be permitted to file objections just with a view to delay the execution proceedings. In fact, they had the knowledge of the pending litigation and could get themselves impleaded even before the disposal of the earlier lis between the parties. There is no evidence on record to justify the claim of the petitioners to show that they are owners of the property. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I find merit in the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners. As far as mentioning or non-mentioning of provisions of law in the objections filed by the petitioner is concerned, I do not find that to be fatal. If there is an enabling provision under which a person is entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of the Court, even if the same is not mentioned in the application or petition, it is deemed that the same is filed under that provision. In the present case, the claim of the petitioners is that in fact, they are owners of the property and the decree of possession passed in favour of respondent No.1 should not be executed in her favour as in the process, their rights will be affected. In fact, the suit was filed by respondent No.1 seeking possession of the property from the tenant without impleading the petitioners as party. The learned court below has dismissed the objections filed by the petitioners without affording them an opportunity to lead evidence in support of their claim. Order 21 Rule 101 of the Code of Civil Procedure is quite explicit, which provides that all questions including questions relating to right, title or interest in the property arising between the parties to a proceeding on an application under Order 21 Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure has to be determined by the Court dealing with the application and not by a separate suit and for that purpose, the Executing Court shall have the jurisdiction to decide those issues. In the present case, the petitioners had raised the question of title of the property in the execution of a decree of possession passed in favour of respondent No.1, claiming themselves to be the owners of the property. Once that was the issue, it was required by the learned Executing Court to have afforded opportunity to the petitioners to lead evidence to prove their claim and only then decide the same finally and not in a summary manner, as has been done. C.R. No. 4886 of 2008 [3] For the reasons mentioned above, the impugned order passed by the learned Executing Court is set aside. The parties are directed to appear before the learned Executing Court on 28.2.2009 for further proceedings. The revision petition is disposed of in the manner indicated above. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge January 19, 2009 mk