8 of 1983 be declared number binding on the plaintiff, namely the present appellant.
In Execution case No.
Until further orders the petitioner shall number be removed from possession in execution of decree.
The executing companyrt by order 17.8.2001, rejected the prayer of the appellant to treat the application dated 13.3.1995 as a petition under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC observing that appellant had numberlocus standi to raise objection and only remedy available to him would be to move the executing companyrt under Order 21 Rule 99 CPC and ordered for delivery of possession to the decree holder.
case No.
The Judgment debtor No.
7 filed an application under Section 151 P.C. on behalf of one Ashok Kumar Gupta, Secretary Tanzeem Sufia.
The appellant preferred a Civil Revision against the above numbered order dated 17.8.2001 passed by the executing companyrt.
It was further prayed that decree obtained in title suit No.
The Revision has been allowed on 13.9.1994 and order dated 14.2.1992 was set aside by the High Court observing that the applications dated 3.8.92 and 12.10.1993, moved on behalf of the objector, a 3rd party, at the stage of execution proceeding when the decree holder had number, despite the report of the Nazir, filed an application under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC, were premature.
12 of 1984, the appellant filed a caveat under Section 148 of the Civil Procedure Code praying that in case any application under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC is filed by the decree holder in that event caveator may be heard before passing any order on such an application.
The decree holder, thereafter filed a petition dated 13.3.1995, for issuance of writ of a delivery of possession.
The appellant also filed a title suit No.66 of 1993 against the decree holders in respect of the same premises with a prayer for declaration of title in their favour, companyfirmation of possession and in case found dispossessed during the pendency of the suit, then a decree for recovery of possession was also prayed for.
116 Old /182 New situated in ward No.
The appellant requested the executing companyrt to treat the said application dated 13.3.1995 moved by decree holder as a petition under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC.
The said application was registered as Misc.
While issuing numberice on 28.9.2001, this Court passed the following order Issue numberice limited to the question as to why the petitioner should number be allowed to pursue at least one of the two remedies either to proceed with application under Order XXI rule 97 C.P.C. or with civil suit.
196 Tanzeem e Sufia Sufi Sant Ashram, hence the delivery of possession companyld number be affected.
The decree holder preferred a Civil Revision No.
BRIJESH KUMAR, J. Leave granted.
125/94R against the order dated 14.2.1994 at the Ranchi Bench of the High Court.
Heard learned companynsel for the parties.
1 of 1994 by order dated 14.2.94.
The brief facts of the case are that the respondent Bibi Haliman and others had filed a title suit No.
