A stranger to a decree can object to execution proceedings only if they establish a prima facie semblance of title or possession. The executing court must adjudicate such claims to prevent injustice, provided the objector produces necessary evidence to prevent the abuse of the judicial process.

Order No.03 / Dated : 15.12.2025

In both the civil miscellaneous petitions common questions of fact and law is involved, therefore, they are being heard together and will be disposed of by the common order.

2. The issue at hand is whether a stranger to the decree, who claims to be in possession of the decretal property, can raise an objection under Order XXI Rule 97 of the CPC and further whether the executing Court is obligated to hear and dispose of the objection raised by the stranger under this provision.

3. Title Suit No.115/70 was decreed in favour of the opposite party- Company, Tata Steel Limited on 06.09.1994 which attained finality.

4. The decree was put in execution vide Execution Case No.6/1996 and the decree is yet to be finally executed.

5. The petitioners- Dinesh Kumar Singh and Sandeep Singh preferred an objection to the execution of the decree in Civil Misc. Case No.14/2024 on the basis of the claim of possession. Objection on identical ground was raised by one Pramod Kumar Singh & Others in Civil Misc. Case No.16/2024 which has been dismissed by the learned Executing Court inter alia on the ground that Order XXI Rule 97 of the CPC was not attracted as the petitioners were stranger to the decree. The learned executing Court noted that such a petition was not maintainable by stranger also in view of Rule 115B of Civil Court Rule of the High Court of Jharkhand (Amendment), wherein it has been provided that the executing Court must not issue notice to a third party claiming rights in a mechanical manner. Executing Court relied on Nand Lal Sharma Vs. Raj Kumar Sharma , 2014(3) JLJR 13 Jhr., wherein it has been held that an objection petition in the execution proceeding is not maintainable at the instance of a third party, who had no right , title or interest in the property.

6. It is argued by the learned counsel on behalf of the petitioners that the law has been settled by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sameer Singh & Anr. Vs. Abdul Rab & Others, (2015) 1 SCC 379, that the executing Court has the authority to adjudicate all the questions pertaining to right, title or interest in the property arising between the parties. It also includes the claim of a stranger who apprehends dispossession or has already been dispossessed from the immovable property. The provisions contained in Order XXI Rules 97, 98, 99 of the CPC are self-contained and they enjoin the executing Court to adjudicate on the title of the objector, to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. Prior to 1976 amendment, the grievance was required to be agitated by filing a suit but after the amendment the entire enquiry has to be conducted by the executing Court. It is contended that the ratio as laid down in this case been followed by the Apex Court in Ved Kumari (Dead) Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, (2023) 13 SCC 651.

7. It is argued by the learned counsel on behalf of the opposite parties that the documents relied upon by the petitioners on the claim of their possession is the recent survey which was started in 1994 and was finally published in 2000 showing his possession since 1975. These documents are subsequent to the filing of the Title Suit No.115/70 which was decreed in favour of the opposite party- Company, Tata Steel Limited on 06.09.1994. It is argued that Order XXI Rule 97 of the CPC can be invoked by a stranger to the decree in bona fide possession of the same and obstruction should be recorded in the execution proceeding. Unless there is an obstruction by a stranger, there cannot be adjudication. Mere filing of an objection petition, will not be sufficient for invoking Order XLI Rule 97 of the CPC. Specific reference is made in Shamsher Singh & Another Vs. Lieutenant Colonel Nahar Singh (dead), (2019) 17 SCC 279, Para 16.

ANALYSIS

8. One disturbing fact that stares at our face is that the suit was filed in the year 1970, it was decreed in 1994, it attains finality, yet the fruits of the decree, eludes the decree holder.

9. Petition dated 1st Oct