A third-party objector with no independent legal title or enforceable rights cannot interfere in execution proceedings under Order XXI Rule 97; prior claims rejected by the court bar subsequent applications citing res judicata.

JUDGMENT :

SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM, J.

1. The captioned appeals are by a common objector in O.S.Nos.71/2021 and 76/2021 assailing the order of the Executing Court rejecting the application filed under Order XXI Rule 97 of CPC.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rank before the Executing Court.

3. During the pendency of the execution proceedings in Ex. Nos.922 and 924/2024, a third-party objector filed application in both the suits under Order XXI Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, asserting possessory rights over the schedule property. The objector contended that the decree-holder had executed an agreement to sell in his favour and, therefore, the execution of the ejectment decree in O.S. No.71 and 76/2021 would seriously prejudice his rights. The applications were strongly opposed by the decree-holder, who contended that the objector is a total stranger to the proceedings and has no locus standi to maintain an application under Order XXI Rule 97 of CPC. The decree- holder further submitted that the objector had taken contradictory stands on one hand claiming to be an agreement holder, and on the other asserting tenancy rights under the decree-holder.

4. Upon consideration of the pleadings and material on record, the Executing Court held that the objector was relying on an unregistered agreement to sell, which cannot confer possessory rights enforceable in execution proceedings. The Court observed that if the objector seeks to enforce such an agreement, the appropriate remedy lies in instituting an independent suit for specific performance. Accordingly, the applications filed under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC in the both the suits were rejected.

5. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant-objector vehemently argued that the Executing Court erred in rejecting the application summarily, without providing the objector an opportunity to lead evidence in support of his claim. He submitted that such a summary rejection amounts to denial of procedural fairness and violation of the principles of natural justice. It was further contended that the objector, having been misadvised, invoked Order XXI Rule 97 CPC based on an agreement to sell; however, the correct legal position is that he is a lawful tenant inducted by the decree-holder. He argued that the decree-holder, under the guise of executing a decree passed in an ejectment suit, is illegally attempting to dispossess a lawful tenant.

6. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the finding of the Executing Court regarding the applicability of res judicata is wholly misconceived, especially in light of the liberty granted by this Court in W.P.No.1682/2024. He placed reliance on the following judicial pronouncements in support of his submissions:

1. Asgar and Others vs. Mohan Varma and Others , (2020) 16 SCC 230

2. Noorduddin vs. Dr. K.L. Anand , (1995) 1 SCC 242

3. Smt. Naney Pais vs. S. Surendra and Another , ILR 2010 KAR 629

4. M.G. Chandrashekar vs. P. Kanakambara Rao and Others , RFA No. 1007/2009

5. S. Vignesh Shishir vs. D.S. Paramesh and Another , W.P. No. 2967/2024

7. In response, the learned Senior Counsel for the decree-holder contended that the objection is wholly malafide and a clear attempt to frustrate the execution of a lawful decree. He submitted that the original judgment debtor against whom the decree was passed is th