Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
Manoj Jain, J.
Leelawati – Petitioner
versus
Rajiv Kumar – Respondent
CM (M) 1274 of 2025 and
CM Appl. 42605-42606 of 2025
Decided on 29.8.2025
For the Petitioner:Mr. Krishna Chandra Dubey, Mr. Ashok Kr. Singh, Mr. Abhishek Agarwal and Ms. Uma Tarafdar, Advocates
For the Respondent:Mr. Akil Rataeeya and Mr. Movish Lohia, Advocates
IMPORTANT POINT
Objection to execution of decree – Order XXI Rule 99 CPC is meant for a third party stranger to decree – Judgment-debtor cannot make use of the provision.
Headnote:
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order XXI Rule 99 – Objection to execution of decree – Order XXI Rule 99 CPC is meant for a third party stranger to decree – Judgment-debtor cannot make use of the provision – Objective behind such objection petition is to ensure that there is no unnecessary multiplicity of proceedings and all questions related to “execution and its discharge” are decided by Executing Court – Petitioner and her husband had filed application under Order XXI Rule 99 CPC before Executing Court which had been dismissed – Petitioner is only a face in the front and strings are pulled by her husband who is judgment-debtor – In such a peculiar situation, such objector cannot be permitted to raise grievance that it has independent right to maintain the same, being third party – What cannot be done directly cannot be permitted to be done indirectly – Execution petition, even otherwise, has no merit as she has already filed a substantive suit – Impugned order affirmed. (Paras 14, 17, 18 and 21)
Result: Petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
Petitioner Smt. Leelawati is wife of judgment-debtor Sh. Munshi Lal and has taken exception to order dated 04.07.2025 whereby her petition filed under Order XXI Rule 99 CPC has been dismissed summarily.
2. In order to appreciate her contentions in effective manner, let me give a very brief backdrop of the factual aspects.
3. A suit was filed by one Sh. Rajiv Kumar (decree-holder) against Sh. Munshi Lal in the year 2022.
4. According to plaintiff Sh. Rajeev Kumar (respondent herein), he was the absolute and sole owner of property in question situated at Qutub Vihar, Phase-I, New Delhi. He submitted chain of the documents demonstrating as to how he became owner of the property. Lastly the aforesaid property was sold by Smt. Leelawati to Sh. Krishan Kumar on 07.05.2016 and plaintiff purchased the property from Sh. Krishan Kumar on 16.05.2019.
5. Based on the aforesaid documents and other averments, he sought possession, injunction and damages.
6. Defendant was, though, duly served in the aforesaid suit but despite grant of numerous opportunities, he did not defend the matter and did not even file any written statement and, eventually, on the basis of the evidence led by the plaintiff, a decree was passed in his favour, inter alia, for the possession of the suit property.
7. Admittedly, the aforesaid decree was challenged by the defendant/judgment-debtor Sh. Munshi Lal by filing a Regular First Appeal before learned District Judge and such RFA was also dismissed. Such order has also been challenged by the judgment-debtor but his Regular Second Appeal is still pending adjudication.
8. The objection application under Order XXI Rule 99 CPC has been filed by the wife of judgment-debtor with the assertion that the aforesaid decree has been obtained by way of fraud. According her, decree-holder was running a gang of land grabbers and had trapped several persons. According to her, Mr. Krishan Kumar was also one of the active members of his gang and the modus operandi was to get hold of the property documents under mortgage on advance of loan amount and then to transfer the property documents in illegal manner.
9. The aforesaid objection application was taken up by learned Executing Court on 04.07.2025 and the learned Executing Court considered the fact that the objector has already filed a separate civil suit against not only the decree holder but also against Sh. Krishan Kumar whereby she is seeking declaration and injunction. The declaration is to the effect that documents executed by her in favour of Sh. Krishan Kumar be declared null and void as these were got prepared in fraudulent manner.
10. The aforesaid suit is still pending adjudication and her application filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC has also been dismissed by the learned Trial Court.
11. Relevant provision i.e. Order XXI Rule 99 CPC read as under:-
“99. Dispossession by decree-holder or purchaser.—(1) Where any person other than the judgment debtor is dispossessed of immovable property by the holder of a decree for the possession of such property or, where such property has been sold in execution of a decree, by the purchaser thereof, he may make an application to the Court complaining of such dispossession.
(2) Where any such application is made, the Court shall proceed to adjudicate upon the application in accordance with the provisions herein contained.”
12. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that learned Executing Court should have decided the objection petition on merits, instead of discarding the same by saying that it was premature. Relying on Brahmdeo Chaudhary v. Rishikesh Prasad Jaiswal: (1997) 3 SCC 694, it has been argued that even if she continued to be in possession, the learned Executing Court should not have dismissed her objection by holding that the aforesaid application would kick in only after she was, eventually, dispossessed.
13. Learned counsel for respondent/decree-holder has refuted the abovesaid contention and while
