1. Revision against return of restoration petition in execution proceedings — Third party objection under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC. (Para 3 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 8178
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N. Senthilkumar, J
R. Sivakumar – Appellant
Versus
Palanisamy – Respondent
CRP(MD). No.3916 of 2025|CMP(MD) No.20442 of 2025
Important Points
The executing court is not empowered to conduct a roving enquiry into the rights of a third party in execution proceedings; such rights must be adjudicated in a proper suit, and orders under Order 21 Rule 97 are treated as deemed decrees.
Subject
Civil Law - Execution Proceedings
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Execution Proceedings - Third Party Objections - Scope of Enquiry - An executing court cannot conduct a roving enquiry regarding the title or rights of a third party in execution proceedings as such matters are the subject matter of a regular suit. (Para 6)
(B) Civil Procedure - Order 21 Rule 97 and 103 - Deemed Decree - Orders passed under Order 21 Rule 97 of C.P.C. are construed as deemed decrees under Order 21 Rule 103 of C.P.C. (Para 6)
Issues: Whether a third party can agitate their right over a property within execution proceedings through a restoration application after the dismissal of an objection petition.
(B) Civil Procedure - Order 21 Rule 97 and 103 - Deemed Decree - Orders passed under Order 21 Rule 97 of C.P.C. are construed as deemed decrees under Order 21 Rule 103 of C.P.C. (Para 6)
Issues: Whether a third party can agitate their right over a property within execution proceedings through a restoration application after the dismissal of an objection petition.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- practice and procedure
- property law
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: T. Lenin Kumar
For the Appellants/Petitioners: T. Lenin Kumar
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner claimed continuous possession and that land was poramboke, not rented; trial court erroneously returned the application. (Para 4 )
3. Executing court cannot conduct roving enquiry into third-party rights; any order under Order 21 Rule 97 is deemed decree. (Para 6 )
4. Third party cannot agitate substantive rights in execution proceedings; remedy lies in a separate suit. (Para 6 )
5. Civil Revision Petition dismissed as not maintainable and lacking merits; observations on merits not made. (Para 7 )
6. Can a third party agitate substantive rights in execution proceedings?
No. The executing court cannot conduct a roving enquiry into a third party's right; that must be decided in a separate suit. (Para 6 )
7. What is the nature of an order passed under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC?
Any order passed under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC is to be construed as a deemed decree under Order 21 Rule 103 CPC. (Para 6 )
PRAYER :-Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the order dated 12-11-2025 passed by the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Srirangam in unnumbered E.A....., of 2025 in E.A.No.01 of 2019 in E.P.No.96 of 2019 in R.C.O.P.No.193 of 2000 and direct the District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate, Srirangam to number the said E.A.
For Petitioner : Mr.T.Lenin Kumar
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the return order dated 12.11.2025 passed by the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Srirangam in unnumbered E.A. ... of 2025 in E.A.No.01 of 2019 in E.P.No.96 of 2019 in R.C.O.P.No.193 of 2000.
2.The third party to RCOP.No.193 of 2000 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Trichy, is the petitioner herein.
3.The first respondent/landlord had filed RCOP.No.193 of 2000 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Trichy, against the second respondent/tenant seeking eviction on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent. In the said petition, an ex parte order came to be passed on 23.04.2003, based on which, the first respondent had filed E.P.No.746 of 2004, but the same was dismissed on 30.03.2007 for non payment of delivery batta. The first respondent again filed EP.No.88 of 2016 before the 1 Additional District Munsif Court, Trichy and in the said EP proceedings, the petitioner, who is a third party to RCOP.No.193 of 2000, had filed an application under Order 21 Rule 97 of C.P.C, to record his objections in the execution petition, which was later transferred and renumbered as E.A.No.1 of 2019 in E.P.No.96 of 2019. On 06.10.2025, the said EA., was dismissed for default and on 12.11.2025, the petitioner filed a restoration petition under Order IX Rule 9 r/w Section 151 CPC before the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Srirangam. However, the same was returned by the Court below stating that 'how this petition is applicable to execution petition'. Challenging the same, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed.
4.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner, who is the brother of the second respondent and the second respondent are in continuous possession and enjoyment of the property, which is sought to be delivered. He would further submit that the land is a Poramboke land and not a rented property as claimed by the first respondent. In this regard, the petitioner along with the second respondent had already instituted a suit in O.S.No.1479 of 2014 against the first respondent for permanent injunction. However, without considering all those facts properly, the trial Court had returned the application filed by the petitioner, which warrants interference of this Court. He would further submit that if the application is not numbered, the petitioner will be put to irreparable loss and hardship and thus, he called upon this Court to grant the relief as prayed for.
5.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Since no adverse orders are going to be passed in this petition, notice to the respondents is dispensed with.
6.Perusal of record would reveal that the petitioner, who is a third party to RCOP.No.193 of 2000, has filed an application claiming right over the property in question under Order 21 Rule 97 of C.P.C to record his objections in the Execution Petition. Therefore, any order passed under this provision should only be construed to be a deemed decree under Order 21 Rule 103 of C.P.C. The Executing Court cannot conduct a roving enquiry with regard to the right of a third party, as it is the subject matter, which has to be decided in the suit. Since the third party cannot agitate his right in the execution proceedings, this Court is not inclined to entertain this petition.
7.In such circumstances, the present Civil Revision Petition is not maintainable and is accordingly, dismissed for want of merits. It is made clear that this Court has not considered the merits of the claim m
