https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465697 An application seeking removal of obstruction to delivery of possession must be examined by its substance, not its label, and where a stranger or independent claimant resists execution it falls within Order 21 Rule 97 CPC rather than Order 21 Rule 35(3). On that basis, the obstruction application should be treated as a Rule 97 proceeding and decided on merits. The Court further stated that each obstruction may give rise to a fresh cause of action, so later applications were not barred by limitation or res judicata on the facts presented. Technical characterization could not defeat adjudication of the decree-holder's resistance to delivery of possession. en-us Tue, 04 Oct 1994 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 17 Feb 2026 10:18:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465697 An application seeking removal of obstruction to delivery of possession must be examined by its substance, not its label, and where a stranger or independent claimant resists execution it falls within Order 21 Rule 97 CPC rather than Order 21 Rule 35(3). On that basis, the obstruction application should be treated as a Rule 97 proceeding and decided on merits. The Court further stated that each obstruction may give rise to a fresh cause of action, so later applications were not barred by limitation or res judicata on the facts presented. Technical characterization could not defeat adjudication of the decree-holder's resistance to delivery of possession. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 04 Oct 1994 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465697