(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, to direct the Principal District and Sessions Court, Thiruvallur, to take on file and number E.A.SR.No.9063 of 2023 (Filing No.TNTR010011952017) in EP.No.149 of 2017 in O.S.No.557 of 2004 (on the file of Principal District and Sessions Court, Thiruvallur) and to decide the same on merits and in accordance with law.)

1. The petitioner is a third party, who filed an application, alleging that he is a tenant in the suit property and also an agreement holder, having paid substantial advance towards sale consideration, approached the executing Court, challenging the sale deed dated 18.04.2012 in E.P.No.151 of 2010 and also to determine the interest of the petitioner in the suit property and to consequently not dispossess him from the suit property. The said application was filed under Order XXI Rule 99 of CPC, and the same came to be returned, despite compliances made. Challenging the said order, returning the application, the present revision has been filed.

2. I have heard Mr.Ma.Pa.Thangavel, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.S.Ramesh Kumar, learned counsel for the contesting 2 nd respondent.

3. Mr.Ma.Pa.Thangavel, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is the tenant in respect of a portion of the suit property on and from 23.12.2020 and he has been running a mini Home Appliances/Electric and Electronic Peripherals Store under the name of style of M/s.Hi-Tech Services. It is the further case of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the 3 rd respondent and his son approached the petitioner for financial need to meet urgent expenses and the petitioner arranged for a sum of Rs.5 lakhs, which was agreed to be adjusted towards future lease amounts or alternatively to return the same with interest. It is the further case of the petitioner that subsequently the respondents 3 and 4 had expressed their inability to repay the amount and offered the property for sale to the petitioner and on 23.12.2020, a sale agreement has also been entered into and substantial advances have been received by the respondents 3 and 4.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that he came to know that some persons are attempting to disturb his possession and similarly attempts were made to take possession from other tenants. On enquiry, the petitioner claims that he came to know about the decree and he has filed the instant application to protect his possession. The petitioner also claims that the respondents 3 and 4 did not have any right in the suit property to even enter into sale agreement or lease deed and the decree holder has no valid title and the decree is a nullity in the eye of law. Consequently the auction purchase itself is challenged as being invalid and inexecutable. Besides seeking to determine his interest in the suit property, the petitioner also sought to challenge the auction purchase made by the 2 nd respondent, on the ground that the proclamation suffers from several irregularities and is not in accordance with the provisions of Order XXI Rule 66 of CPC.

5. The said application came to be returned by the executing Court on the ground that invocation of Order XXI Rule 99 of CPC was not proper and the petitioner was also called upon to produce the lease agreement under which the petitioner claims right. According to the petitioner, the said lease agreement was also produced and the Court was not satisfied that it covered the present period and again returned the petition, directing the petitioner to produce the subsisting lease agreement to establish the right of the petitioner. It is thereafter that the present revision has been filed, challenging the return made by the executing Court.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner would rely on the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rengith K.G and others Vs. Sheeba, reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 2821, where the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that any person who is not even a party to the suit or in other words, even a stranger can seek redelivery, after he has been dispossessed. However, admittedly in the present case, the petitioner has not been dispossessed. Therefore, no reliance can be placed on Order XXI Rule 99 of CPC. He would also rely on the decision of this Court in Karunakaran Vs. Malavan and others in CRP.No.694 of 2013 dated 04.06.2025, where this Court referring to Shreenath and another Vs. Rajesh and others, reported in AIR 1998 SC 1827, held that an application filed by an obstructer under Order XXI Rule 97 of CPC was maintainable and it was not limited to the decree holder or the auction purchaser. However, the facts of those case are entirely different since that was a case where an attempt was made to obstruct the execution of the decree under Order XXI Rule 97 of CPC and in such circumstances, this Court held that a person claiming any independent right, is entitled to file an application under XXI Rule 97 of CPC.

7. Mr.S.Ramesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the 2 nd respondent would submit that the suit was filed in the year 2004 and after obtaining a decree, EP.151 of 2010 was filed to recover the amounts due under the mortgage and the mortgaged property was itself brought for sale even as early as on 18.04.2012. The deceased 1 st respondent was the successful auction purchaser in the said sale and it was also confirmed by the Court even on 07.03.2013 and sale certificate also came to be issued on 19.03.2015.

8. The learned counsel for the 2 nd respondent would further submit that when the auction purchaser filed E.P.No.149 of 2019 for possession, the respondents 3 and 4 filed an application under Section 47, challenging the executability of the decree; not to issue sale certificate and to set aside the sale. These execution applications in E.A.No.38 of 2013, E.A.o.26 of 2014 and E.A.No.45 of 2014 came to be dismissed on 19.03.2015. The said order were challenged in CRP.Nos.4452, 4453 & 4454 of 2015 and this Court dismissed the revision petitions on 14.12.2022 and thereafter, delivery order was passed on 22.08.2023. In the meantime, the 1 st respondent/auction purchaser had died on 15.06.2024 and necessary consequent applications to bring on record the legal representatives were filed and they also came to be allowed.

9. The learned counsel for the 2 nd respondent would further submit that the apart from the petitioner, there are two other tenants, who filed similar applications before the executing Court to defeat the decree in favour of the auction purchaser. However, the said applications in E.A.Nos.8 and 9 of 2023 were dismissed on 22.10.2023. He would further submit that the petitioner was sitting on the fence and watching the proceedings between the other two tenants and the decree holder and despite the petitioner claims that he has been a lessee from 23.12.2020, he filed his application only on 15.11.2023, after dismissal of the applications filed by the other tenants. He was not diligent in prosecuting the application even after filing and slept over the matter for 19 months, before approaching this Court under Article 227 of Constitution of India.

10. The learned counsel would further submit that the petitioner claims under the judgment debtor and has no independent right or interest over the suit property. In such circumstances, the application of the petitioner is barred under Order XXI Rule 102 of CPC and he has no right to resist the execution. He would place reliance on the decision of this Court, reported in M.Sathyan Sundararajan Vs. K.R.P.Janakiraman and others, reported in 2019 5 CTC 104. He would therefore pray for dismissal of the revision petition.

11. I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel on either side.

12. Firstly, the application has been filed under Order XXI Rule 99 of CPC, which can be filed only after the petitioner invoking the said provision is dispossessed. Admittedly, the revision petitioner continues to be in occupation and therefore, he is not entitled to invoke Order XXI Rule 99 of CPC. Even assuming that in and by the said application, the petitioner was only attempting to obstruct the order of delivery and it was an application actually under Order XXI Rule 97 of CPC and not Order XXI Rule 99 of CPC, even then the locus of the petitioner to file an application under Order XXI Rule 97 of CPC need to be examined.

13. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the 2 nd respondent, under Order XXI Rule 102 of CPC, the rules applicable to resistance or obstruction in execution of a decree for possession of an immovable property, are specifically not made applicable to a transferee pendente lite. Admittedly, the revision petitioner claims only under a lease deed and a sale agreement 23.12.2020, which was long after the judgment debtors suffered a decree in the suit. Even on going through the application, I do not find any independent right claimed by the revision petitioner to maintain an application under Order XXI Rule 97 of CPC. In the light of the above and in view of express bar under Order XXI Rule 102 of CPC, the application filed by the petitioner is clearly not maintainable and the order of the executing Court, returning the application does not call for any interference.

14. In fine, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is closed.