An executing court must conduct an enquiry on objections in execution proceedings; failing this, orders may lack validity, necessitating appeal remedies.

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner is before this Court calling in question an order of the concerned Court dated 19.08.2025 and consequently seeks a direction by issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Executing Court to conduct an enquiry as obtaining under Order XXI Rule 101 of CPC.

2. Heard Sri.S.Kalyan Basavaraj, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.A.Anil Kumar Shetty, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3.

3. Petitioner is the objector. The first respondent is the Judgment-Debtor. The second respondent is the plaintiff- Decree Holder and so he is the third respondent. A land in Survey No.76/5 measuring 2 acres and 20 guntas becomes the subject matter of the proceedings in OS 1522 of 2018. The suit came to be decreed on 18.02.2019. The averments in the petition is that respondents No.2 and 3 still attempted to interfere with the possession of the petitioner claiming to have been obtained a decree as observed hereinabove. The petitioner then, is said to have instituted proceedings in a separate suit in OS 1276 of 2020 which was later renumbered as OS 3031 of 2022. The issue in the lis does not pertain to the other suit i.e. OS 1276 of 2020. The issue is with regard to the execution.

4. The respondent-Decree Holder filed an execution petition in Execution No.4 of 2024 to execute the aforesaid decree in OS 1522 of 2018. The petitioner herein - the objector files an application under Order XXI Rule 97 read with 101 and Section 47 of CPC seeking to implead himself into the execution contending that he is a party interested. The concerned Court, by the impugned order rejects the application under Order XXI Rule 97 of CPC. The issue now would be whether an order rejecting an application under Order XXI Rule 97 of CPC would be appealable or a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India would be entertainable against the said order rejecting an application under Order XXI Rule 97 of CPC.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Sri. S. Kalyan Basavaraj, would submit that the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of SAMEER SINGH V. ABDUL RAB AND OTHERS reported in (2015) 1 SCC 379 considered the very issue and holds that if the concerned Court in answering to an application under Order XXI Rule 97 of CPC does not conduct an enquiry then it becomes an order contrary to law and therefore, the petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India before this Court would become entertainable. The learned counsel would further emphasize on the fact that the concerned Court ignores that there is an order of injunction not to alienate granted by the same Court and therefore, the Court could not have rejected the application filed by the petitioner. The learned counsel submits that the same should have undertaken by the concerned Court.

6. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent would seek to distinguish the judgment in the case of SAMEER SINGH (supra). The learned counsel would submit that judgment in SAMEER SINGH was rendered on a different circumstance altogether, and therefore the same would not become applicable to the facts obtaining in the case at hand. Both the counsel for the petitioner and the respondent have relied on certain paragraphs of the judgment in the case of SAMEER SINGH, which would bear consideration in the course of the order, query their relevance.

7. The learned counsel submits that he was wanting to file an application seeking quashment of a document appended to the objections. Be those submissions as they are, as observed hereinabove. The issue that merits consid