Resistance to execution by a stranger claiming independent title must be adjudicated before dispossession under Order XXI, Rule 97.

A stranger claiming an independent title to immovable property and resisting execution before dispossession falls within Order XXI, Rule 97 CPC, so the executing court must adjudicate the obstruction under Rules 98 and 101 before any dispossession. Rule 99 applies only later, after actual dispossession, when a non-party seeks restoration. An execution application framed as one for police aid and a fresh warrant cannot be used to bypass adjudication of the obstructionist's claim. The stated scheme preserves natural justice and prevents dispossession without hearing the resisting claimant.

---

---

Issues: Whether a stranger to a decree, who resists execution of a decree for possession of immovable property, can insist that his objection be adjudicated before dispossession and whether the decree-holder's application for police aid and fresh warrant must be treated as an application under Order XXI, Rule 97.

Analysis: The statutory scheme of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure provides two distinct stages. Where execution of a decree for possession is resisted or obstructed, the decree-holder may invoke Order XXI, Rule 97, and the Court must adjudicate the resistance or obstruction under Rules 98 and 101. Rule 99 applies at the later stage where a person other than the judgment-debtor has already been dispossessed and seeks restoration. A person claiming independent title, even if a stranger to the decree, falls within the expression "any person" in Rule 97 when he obstructs execution before dispossession. The decree-holder's application, though framed as one for police aid and a fresh warrant, was in substance an application to remove the obstruction and could not be used to bypass adjudication of the obstructionist's claim. Refusing such adjudication and insisting that the objector first suffer dispossession would defeat the statutory scheme and the principles of natural justice.

Conclusion: The objection of the appellant had to be heard and decided under Order XXI, Rule 97 before dispossession, and the contrary view of the Executing Court and the High Court was unsustainable. The appellant succeeded.

Ratio Decidendi: Resistance to execution by a stranger claiming an independent right in immovable property must be adjudicated under Order XXI, Rule 97 before dispossession, and Rule 99 is confined to the later stage after actual dispossession.

---