IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN

th

ON THE 5 OF FEBRUARY, 2026 CIVIL REVISION No. 289 of 2013 FIROZ ALIJI AND OTHERS Versus BHAGWAT AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri H.C. Kohli & Shri Pramesh Jain- Advocates for the petitioners.

Shri Mukund Agrawal Government Advocate for the respondent-State.

ORDER The present petitioners are objectors in execution proceedings and are objecting to the decree dated 18.08.2004 on the ground that they are purchasers of the property and they are in possession as per valid sale deeds. The Executing Court has held that since the petitioners are strangers to the decree, therefore, they cannot maintain objection under Order 21 Rule 79 CPC and a stranger to the decree can maintain the objection only under Order 21 Rule 99 CPC. The Executing Court came to the conclusion that application under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC can be filed before the Executing Court only by the decree holder or purchaser of the property sold in execution of decree.

2. The Executing Court therefore, considered the objections of the petitioner to be under Order 21 Rule 99 CPC, but held that the objections under Order 21 Rule 99 CPC can only be entertained after losing possession and not before that.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner has been left remediless and he is not having any remedy in the present matter.

4. In the considered opinion of this Court, if for any reason, the petitioner feels that he has a valid title to the suit land then it was open for him to have filed objections before the Executing Court under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC. The issue that whether objections under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC can be filed by a person claiming to be in actual possession or can be filed only by the decree holder as per language of Order 21 Rule 97 CPC, is no longer res integra. It is well settled in law that objections can be filed even by the person in possession and if the person who claims to be in possession is aggrieved by the Executing Court proceeding to hand over possession of the suit land to the decree holder, then such objector can come up before the Court and file objections under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC. The understanding that the objector has remedy only under Order 21 Rule 99 after dispossession and not under Order 21 Rule 97 before dispossession, is utterly misconceived. The issue has been dealt with time and again by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and it is well settled that the obstructionist to the decree of possession can also approach under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC and in fact he has a valid remedy under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Asgar Vs. Mohan Varma, (2020) 16 SCC 230 has held as under:-

“42. In Brahmdeo Chaudhary v. Rishikesh Prasad Jaiswal [Brahmdeo Chaudhary v. Rishikesh Prasad Jaiswal, (1997) 3 SCC 694] , this Court held that the view taken by the High Court [Brahmdeo Chaudhary v. Rishikesh Prasad Jaiswal Civil Revision No. 381 of 1996, order dated 17-5-1996 (Pat)] that the only remedy available to a stranger to a decree who claims an independent right, title or interest in the property is to pursue the remedy under Order 21 Rule 99, was unsustainable. The Court held that a stranger to a decree is entitled to agitate his/her grievance and claim for adjudication for an independent right, title and interest in the decretal property, even after being dispossessed in accordance with Order 21 Rule 99. Order 21 Rule 97 deals with the stage which is prior to the actual delivery of possession and the grievance of the obstructionist can be adjudicated upon before the actual delivery of possession to the decree-holder. In other words, both sets of remedies are available to a stranger to the decree. S.B. Majmudar, J. speaking for the Court held : (SCC p. 703, para 9)

“9. … the High Court has totally ignored the scheme of Order 21 Rule 97 in this connection by taking the view that only remedy of such stranger to the decree lies under Order 21 Rule 99 and he has