Order 21 Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure talks about Resistance or obstruction to possession of the immovable property.
This provision allows parties who have been allowed possession of the immovable property through the execution of a decree or purchase of the immovable property through the execution of a decree can file an application to complain against the said obstructions or resistances. The said application can be filed by both parties to the case or even third parties who have ownership of the immovable property.
This can be seen in the Landmark case law of SILVERLINE FORUM PVT LTD(Appellant) Vs RAJIV TRUST AND ANOTHER (Respondents 1 & 2). In this case, The appellant(Silverline Forum Pvt Ltd.,) bought the property from Arun Kumar Jain who has in turn rented the said property to the respondents(Rajiv Trust and Another.,). Here the respondents obtained an injunction against the ejectment on the basis of not being involved in the initial sale. Hence, the appellants filed an appeal under Order 21 Rule 97, to remove the obstructions caused by the respondents in occupancy over the disputed property. The appeal was allowed based on the fact that the consent given by the landlord to the tenant for the creation of sub-tenancy of the property is valid only between the landlord and the tenant and such consent cannot be used by the sub-tenant to interfere with the sale of the property. This case not only deals with the Resistance or obstruction to possession of the immovable property but also shows the dynamic relationship between the tenant and landlord.
In the case, of KAZI AKEEL AHMED (Appellant) Vs IBRAHIM & ANOTHER (Respondents 1 & 2), the Appellant sublet the property to a Hafiz Abdul Samad, who in turn sublet the property to the respondents. When the Appellants filed an initial suit for recovery of possession of the said property, the respondents filed an application under Order 21 Rule 97 claiming to the court that the possession belonged to the respondents and the appellant’s suit was restricting the respondent's enjoyment of the property. The application was dismissed stating that the respondent's application is a matter to be adjudicated in the original suit and the repetition of the same matter is unnecessary.
In the case, NOORDUDDIN (Appellant) Vs Dr.K.L.ANAND (Respondent). The appellant’s father had migrated to Pakistan and their relatives obtained the properties owned by the appellant's father as evacuee properties and were ultimately sold to the respondent. An original suit was first filed to contest the sale of the property by some of the other relatives due to the fact that some of the relatives had an interest in the properties. The appellant then filed an application under Order 21 Rule 97 under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for impleadment into the sale dispute and to ascertain the ownership of the land in dispute. The supreme court accepted the said application for the appellant to be heard. The supreme court later ruled that the ownership is valid and a commissioner is to be appointed for the demarcation and allotment of the land so that the sale dispute can be settled.
As we can see in the above cases, the application under Order 21 Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure can be filed for multiple reasons such as impleadment into the suit, ejection from the property, or restoration of ownership of the property. Also, It can be applied by both parties to a case or even a third party, but, such an application can be entertained only when the questions raised by the learned judge under Order 21 Rule 101 of the Code of Civil Procedure are clearly answered by the applicant.
Order 21 Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure talks about the questions to be determined and it states that all questions (including questions relating to the right, title, or interest in the property) arising between the parties to a proceeding on an application under rule 97 or rule 99 or their representatives, and relevant to the adjudication of the application, shall be determined by the Court dealing with the application and not by a separate suit and for this purpose, the Court shall, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law for the time being in force, be deemed to have jurisdiction to decide such questions.
Hence, we can clearly see that rules 97 and 101[5] go hand-in-hand to make sure the applications filed are valid and the court can adjudicate the application in due process.