Due process protects admitted possession: dispossession in execution is impermissible until pending possession claims are adjudicated.

A person in admitted possession of immovable property cannot be dispossessed in execution without due process of law when no decree or independent eviction order has been obtained against him. Because the occupant's claim to continue in possession was pending adjudication under Order 21 Rules 98 and 99 CPC, summary removal was held to be high-handed and unlawful. The order directing dispossession was set aside, possession was restored, and the pending execution-related applications, including the application under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, were directed to be decided in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: Whether a person in admitted possession of immovable property can be dispossessed in execution of a decree without due process of law and before adjudication of his application under Order 21, Rules 98 and 99 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Analysis: The appellant was found to be in admitted possession of the demised premises. No decree or independent order for eviction had been obtained against him, and his claim to continue in possession was pending adjudication under Order 21, Rules 98 and 99 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In these circumstances, dispossession without adjudication was held to be high-handed and contrary to due process of law. The Court also directed that the legal controversy as to his rights should be decided in the pending execution-related proceedings, including the application under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.

Conclusion: The appellant could not be dispossessed without due process of law, and the order directing his removal from possession was set aside with a direction to restore possession and decide the pending applications in accordance with law.

---