Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query..!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query..!
Scanned Judgements…!
Order XXI Rule 97 CPC - Enquiry Requirement The adjudicatory process under Order XXI Rule 97(2) involves a specific enquiry by the court to determine the rights, title, and interest in the property claimed by the objector. The executing court is mandated to conduct a limited enquiry before deciding on objections to the execution of a decree, especially when an application is filed under Rules 97 and 98, read with Section 151 CPC. Several sources emphasize that the court must hold an enquiry to ascertain the objector's interest and the validity of their claim before dismissing or accepting such applications ["2022 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 49089"], ["2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 24277"], ["2022 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 6877"], ["2023 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 15655"].
Scope of Enquiry and Procedure The courts are required to follow the procedure under Order XXI Rules 97 to 101, which includes conducting an enquiry and recording findings regarding the objector's interest. Orders passed without such an enquiry are considered contrary to law and can be challenged. The enquiry involves determining whether the objector has a genuine interest in the property and whether their objections are valid, often requiring a mini-trial within the execution proceedings ["2022 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 49089"], ["2022 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 6877"], ["2023 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 15655"].
Order as Decree and Appealability An order rejecting an application under Order XXI Rule 97, after proper enquiry, can be treated as a decree under Order XXI Rule 103, making it appealable. Conversely, if no enquiry is conducted, such orders may be invalid or non-appealable. The law mandates that the order must be based on an enquiry to be deemed a decree and subject to appeal ["2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 24277"], ["2022 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 6877"], ["2023 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 15655"].
Exceptions and Limitations Certain applications, such as those by third parties pendente lite or transferees, may be barred under Rule 102 of Order XXI, if the application is not maintainable because the third party's interest is governed by lis pendens and they lack a direct interest in the property at that stage. In such cases, the court may dismiss or set aside the application without a detailed enquiry ["
Madan Waman Chodankar VS Keshav Malik Hardware - Bombay
"], ["2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 24277"], ["2023 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 15655"].Legal Consequences of Non-Compliance Failure to conduct a proper enquiry when required, or dismissing applications under Order XXI Rule 97 without such enquiry, renders the order illegal and subject to challenge via writ petitions or appeals. The Supreme Court has reiterated that the procedure under Order XXI must be strictly followed, and orders passed without inquiry are contrary to law ["2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 24277"], ["2022 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 6877"].
Under Order XXI Rule 97, the court must conduct a limited enquiry to determine the validity of objections raised by a third party or objector regarding execution proceedings. This enquiry ensures that the rights and interests of all parties are fairly examined before any order is passed. Orders without such an enquiry are deemed illegal and can be challenged. The law also specifies that orders based on proper enquiry are treated as decrees and are appealable. Exceptions exist for third-party transferees pendente lite, where the application may be barred under Rule 102. Overall, strict adherence to the enquiry process under Order XXI Rules 97 to 101 is essential to uphold the legality and fairness of execution proceedings.
Executing a court decree for possession of immovable property can be challenging when faced with resistance or obstruction. Whether from the , third parties, or strangers claiming rights, such hurdles can delay justice. Enter —a statutory remedy designed to address these issues efficiently within the execution framework itself.
This blog explores the nature, scope, procedure, and key judicial interpretations of applications under . It provides clarity on when such applications must be prioritized, how courts adjudicate disputes, and limitations to watch for. While general principles are discussed, consult a legal professional for case-specific advice.
states: Resistance or obstruction to possession of immovable property.—(1) Where the holder of a or the purchaser of any such property sold in execution of a decree is resisted or obstructed by any person obtaining possession of the property, he may make an application to the Court complaining of such resistance or obstruction.2025 0 Supreme(Raj) 1280
This provision empowers the decree-holder (or auction purchaser) to seek court intervention when possession is resisted. Importantly, it's not limited to judgment debtors; third parties, strangers, or even those claiming independent rights can be involved 2025 0 Supreme(SC) 461 2014 0 Supreme(Ker) 238.
The process is a comprehensive, within , determining all questions relating to right, title, or interest in the property between parties or their representatives. It's deemed a complete code, avoiding separate suits and preventing multiplicity of proceedings 2025 0 Supreme(SC) 461 2014 0 Supreme(Ker) 238.
Upon filing, the executing court must proceed to adjudicate under . mandates determining all relevant questions arising between parties, including title disputes—no separate suit required 2022 1 Supreme 287.
In BDA v. Decree Holder ([
#CPCLaw, #Order21Rule97, #ExecutionProceedings
The adjudicatory process is as contemplated under Order XXI Rule 97(2) of the Code. ... 102 of Order XXI. ... It is seen that the application which is considered through the said order is one filed under Order XXI Rules 97 and 98 r/w Section 151 CPC. ... The Executing Court while deciding an application under #....
XXI Rule 98 to Order XXI Rule 101 of CPC. ... Leela1 to contend that if the objector had no interest in the property subject matter of the execution, an application filed under Order XXI Rule 97 of CPC is required to be rejected. ... Writ of Certiorari quashing the impugned order at Annexure-....
conduct an enquiry as obtaining under Order XXI Rule 101 of CPC. ... 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 #HL_ST....
It is also so because 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. Order XXI, Rule 101 provides for the determination of necessary issues. ... the controversy, the order passed cannot be regarded under Rule 103 of Order #HL_START....
In any case, the respondent no. 6-third party being a transferee pendente lite of judgment debtor, in view of the provisions of Rule 102 of Order XXI of the CPC, the Application under Order XXI, Rule 97 of the CPC, being not maintainable, the impugned order is quashed and set aside. ... against the firm and its partners, therefore, was governed by doct....
Therefore, I am of the view, the order of the Trial Court requires to be set aside and the matter requires for enquiry under Order XXI Rule 97 of CPC. ... Hence the appellant filed application before the Trial Court as objector under order XXI rule 97 of CPC, but the Trial Court without making any e....
Order XXI, Rule 97, 100 and 104 of the Code reads as under: – 97. ... Therefore, the petitioners could not maintain any application under Order XXI, Rule 97-104. ... In Brahmdeo Chaudhary (supra) the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the Executing Court has to follow the procedure laid down by Order XXI#HL_E....
In any case, the respondent no. 6-third party being a transferee pendente lite of judgment debtor, in view of the provisions of Rule 102 of Order XXI of the CPC, the Application under Order XXI, Rule 97 of the CPC, being not maintainable, the impugned order is quashed and set ... by the original plaintiffs against the firm and its partners, therefore,....
Sri Harish, learned counsel for the appellant, reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum, contended that when an application filed under Order XXI Rule 97 to 103 r/w Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure is filed, it is incumbent on the part of the Executing Court to hold an enquiry ... Appeal is by the objector dismissing his application filed under Order XX....
the appellants under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC. ... XXI Rule 97 of CPC and if every time enquiry is held on such an No.2 filed an application under Order XXI rule 97 of situation where the decree holder complains div id="page0" style="position
“97. Resistance or obstruction to possession of immovable property.-(1) Where the holder of a decree for the possession of immovable property or the purchaser of any such property sold in execution of a decree is resisted or obstructed by any person obtaining possession of the property, he may make an application to the Court complaining of such resistance or obstruction. [(2) Where any application is made under sub-rule (1), the Court shall proceed to adjudicate upon the application in accord....
9. ANSWER TO POINT NO. 1: Whether in all cases, there would be requirement of an enquiry under Rule 97 of Order XXI of CPC? (c) It is thereafter that the petitioner had filed an application in Order 21 Rule 97, read with Section 47 of the CPC in the aforesaid execution petition No. 32 of 2022, which came to be dismissed and challenging the said Order, the petitioner is before this Court. 8.20. It is in the background of the above provisions that the points for determination w....
Resistance or obstruction to possession of immovable property: Therefore, when the appellant-BDA which has submitted the obstruction/objection in the execution proceedings filed by the decree holder against the judgment debtor with respect to suit land which was acquired by BDA and when the BDA claims right, title or interest in the suit property, such obstruction/objection was required to be adjudicated upon by the Executing Court while considering the application/obstruction under Order XXI ....
Order XXI Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure reads as follows: Resistance or obstruction to possession of immovable property 8. Since a preliminary objection has been raised by the learned counsel for the respondents regarding non-maintainability of the present writ application, the same is being delved into at the threshold.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that whenever such an application is made it is imperative that the court should decide the application taking into consideration the fact whether the applicant claims a right independent of the judgment debtor. Rule 101 of Order XXI contemplates an enquiry in relation to applications made either under Rule 97 or 99. As I have already held in para No. 11 that enquiry was not necessary, the said decision is not applicable to the facts of this....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
