C.R. No. 3583 of 2006 -1- ***** IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 3583 of 2006 Date of Decision : 10.08.2010 M/s Bajaj Steel Traders .......... Petitioner Versus Punjab Wakf Board, Ambala Cantt. & another ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present : Mr. A.K. Chopra, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Shilpa Malhotra, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Parminder Singh, Advocate for respondent No.1. **** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. This revision petition by the objector / petitioner is directed against the order 12.10.2004, passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Faridkot, acting as an executing Court, vide which the objections filed by the petitioner to execution of the decree have been summarily dismissed. In order to appreciate the contentions raised by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, it would be appropriate to note the brief facts, which lead to filing of the objections by the petitioner under Order XXI Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The decree-holder, Punjab Wakf Board had earlier filed a suit for possession, by impleading the petitioner as defendant No.3. The suit was dismissed under Order 9 Rule 8 of the Code C.R. No. 3583 of 2006 -2- ***** of Civili Procedure, on 27.11.1978. The application moved by the decree-holder for restoration of the suit was also dismissed. The order, thus, attained finality. The decree-holder thereafter filed civil suit No. 4 of 2.1.1986 for possession of the property by impleading Sh. Raj Kumar and Krishan Chand, who were defendant No.2 in the earlier suit. The suit was decreed. The petitioner filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure for impleading as a party by claiming, that it was a necessary party, being in possession of the property in dispute. The application was opposed. The application was dismissed by the learned Tribunal. On decree against Raj Kumar and Krishan Chand having attained finality, decree-holder filed execution application, in which the petitioner filed third party objections by claiming to be in possession and being not bound by the decree. The petitioner claimed, that he was in possession of the property for the last more than 40 years. The establishment was registered under the certificate of registration under the Sales Tax Laws as also under the Punjab Shops and Establishment Act, 1958. The learned executing Court summarily rejected the objections filed by the petitioner, by holding therein, that in the suit filed against the judgment debtor a specific stand was taken, that judgment debtors were in possession of the property. The learned Court held, that there was no merit in the objections filed by the objector / petitioner, for the reason, that in spite of dismissal of the application moved by the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 of the C.R. No. 3583 of 2006 -3- ***** Code of Civil Procedure, the suit was held to be not bad for non- joinder of necessary parties. The learned executing Court,from this finding drew an inference that the objector / petitioner was not in possession. On consideration,I find that the impugned order can not be sustained. Once, it was proved, that the application moved by the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure was dismissed, then the petitioner was to be treated as third party. The objections filed against the execution were to be tried as a suit, by giving opportunity to the parties to lead evidence to prove the respective stand. The learned executing Court could not have dismissed the objections summarily, specially when the earlier suit filed by decree-holder for possession against the petitioner was dismissed in default. The restoration application moved by the decree-holder was also dismissed. It is now well settled law, that the objections under Order XXI Rule 97 are to be tried as a suit unless the objections are prima facie found to be frivolous, or that the objector has no case at all. In the present case, the facts stated above, clearly showed, that the objections were not without basis, as suit for possession against petitioner was dismissed. For the reasons stated, this revision petition is allowed, the impugned order passed by the learned executing court is set aside. The case is remanded back to the learned executing Court to adjudicate the objections raised by the petitioner by framing issues and thereafter giving opportunity to the parties to lead evidence. C.R. No. 3583 of 2006 -4- ***** The parties, through their counsel, are directed to appear before the learned executing Court on 15.10.2010. No costs. 10.08.2010 (VINOD K. SHARMA) 'sp' JUDGE