Back
BHARAT P. DESHPANDE
Ratnabai Raikar – Appellant
Versus
Joao Fernandes – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Bharat P. Deshpande, J. - By way of present revision application, the Applicants are challenging the order dated 22.01.2016 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Panaji in Civil Misc. Application No.4/2016 thereby rejecting the application filed by the Applicants under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC in Execution Application No. 24/2004. The learned Executing Court dismissed said application on the ground that execution proceedings have been disposed of and therefore, the application is not maintainable.
2. Heard learned Senior Counsel Mr Nitin Sardessai along with Advocate Mr. Shivam Fadte for the Applicants, learned Counsel Mr Ashwin D. Bhobe with Ms A. Kuvelkar for Respondent No.15. No one appeared on behalf of L.Rs. of Respondent No.1 though duly served by way of publication.
3. Mr Nitin Sardessai submitted that impugned order is bad in law as the learned Executing Court committed jurisdictional error by rejecting application only on the ground that the execution proceedings are disposed of. He submitted that Applicants filed objections to the execution of decree in Execution Application No. 24/2004 under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC thereby objecting to alleged ownership and
The duty of the Executing Court to entertain and decide questions arising out of execution proceedings, as provided under Section 47 of CPC and Order 21 Rule 97 to Rule 101.
The executing court is competent to consider all questions raised by the persons offering obstruction against execution of the decree and pass appropriate order, which is to be treated as a decree. T....
The court reinforced that obstruction claims in execution proceedings must be heard to uphold rights, ensuring adherence to natural justice principles.
The Appellate Court's failure to consider evidence of independent title and the lack of a mandatory injunction for removal of structures rendered the decree in-executable.
A third party claiming under a judgment debtor cannot file an application under Order XXI Rule 97; they must file under Rule 99 instead.
Rule 97 read with Rule 101 of Order 21 post amendment wherein the executing court has to determine under Rule 101 Order 21 of the Code that the question raised has legally arisen between the parties ....
The executing court has jurisdiction to enforce decrees, including injunctions, and can act against violations by judgment debtors.
A transferee of a judgment debtor cannot invoke Order XXI Rule 99 for re-delivery, as their rights must be independent of the judgment debtor's rights.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
