Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Both rules are intended to safeguard bonafide third parties and prevent wrongful dispossession ["GSSS Credit Co-operative Society Limited VS Ashok Shivraj Goni - Karnataka"], ["Surendra Kumar VS Aditya Kumar Sharma - Allahabad"].
Circumstances When Application Under Rules 97 & 98 Cannot Be Allowed
When the application is filed by a third party who is not dispossessed or does not have a bonafide claim to resist the execution, as the rules primarily protect bonafide third parties who are dispossessed or obstructed ["Abdul Hasan VS First Addl. Dist. Judge Pratapgarh - Allahabad"], ["GSSS Credit Co-operative Society Limited VS Ashok Shivraj Goni - Karnataka"].
Judicial Principles and Restrictions
The rules are not meant to be a substitute for regular suits or to challenge the decree’s validity but are meant for bonafide third-party claims or objections to possession ["GSSS Credit Co-operative Society Limited VS Ashok Shivraj Goni - Karnataka"], ["Surendra Kumar VS Aditya Kumar Sharma - Allahabad"].
Legal Limitations & Finality of Orders
References:- GSSS Credit Co-operative Society Limited VS Ashok Shivraj Goni - Karnataka- Surendra Kumar VS Aditya Kumar Sharma - Allahabad- Bhim Prasad Sah @ Bhim Prasad, S/o. Late Gudari Sah VS Raghuwar Sharan, S/o. Late Ramayan Sharan Srivastava - Patna- Abdul Hasan VS First Addl. Dist. Judge Pratapgarh - Allahabad- Gnanasoundari VS G. Vijayakala - 2023 0 Supreme(Mad) 3095- Raoji S/o. Devaji patel VS K. M. Savithridevi - Karnataka- Muhammed Yasir, S/o Thettan Ahammedkutty vs Alavi - Kerala
In the complex world of civil execution proceedings under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), disputes often arise when third parties resist or obstruct the delivery of possession of immovable property. A common query among litigants is: Whether Second Appeal is Permissible against Order Passed under Order 21 Rule 97 and 99? This question becomes critical when executing courts pass orders adjudicating such resistances, and parties seek higher remedies.
This post delves into the legal framework, key circumstances where applications under these rules may not be entertained, appeal mechanisms, and practical insights. Note that this is general information based on judicial precedents and should not be construed as specific legal advice—consult a qualified lawyer for your case.
Order 21 Rule 97 CPC allows the decree holder or purchaser in an execution sale to apply to the court if resisted or obstructed by any person in obtaining possession of immovable property. The court then adjudicates the matter under Rule 98, which provides for inquiry and orders. Rule 99 addresses dispossession during execution and restoration rights.
These provisions form a complete code for resolving execution disputes, as held in various cases. However, their applicability is not absolute. Courts must scrutinize if the application is maintainable before proceeding. Salik Ram Singh @ Salik Ram VS Addl. District Judge Court No. 3 Gonda - 2022 Supreme(All) 116
The provisions of Order 21 Rules 97 to 103 CPC provide a complete code for resolving disputes pertaining to execution of decree for possession and the executing court is under obligation to adjudicate the right, title or interest of the obstructionist/resister in the manner prescribed under these rules. Salik Ram Singh @ Salik Ram VS Addl. District Judge Court No. 3 Gonda - 2022 Supreme(All) 116
Executing courts cannot entertain applications under Order 21 Rule 97 and 98 in certain scenarios, directing parties to file separate suits instead. Here are the key circumstances:
When the objector has already instituted a separate suit claiming independent right, title, and interest over the property, Rule 97 does not apply. The executing court lacks jurisdiction to inquire into title disputes pending elsewhere. Vol Builders Private Limited VS Janab Salim Saheb - JharkhandVol Builders Private Limited VS Janab Salim Saheb - Jharkhand
The court cannot call for evidence on rival title claims, as it would interfere with the title suit. Vol Builders Private Limited VS Janab Salim Saheb - JharkhandVol Builders Private Limited VS Janab Salim Saheb - Jharkhand
Only the decree holder or auction purchaser can file under Rule 97 complaining of resistance. Third parties without this status cannot invoke it. Commissioner of Hazaribagh Nagar Parishad VS Rup Chand Jain - Jharkhand
If a separate title declaration suit by the objector was dismissed, the executing court cannot re-litigate the issue under Rule 97. Vol Builders Private Limited VS Janab Salim Saheb - JharkhandVol Builders Private Limited VS Janab Salim Saheb - Jharkhand
While Rule 97 covers persons resisting possession, including those not bound by the decree, if the objector claims independence unbound by the decree, a separate suit may be mandated rather than Rule 97 adjudication. Tanzeem-e-sufia VS Bibi Haliman - Supreme CourtP. Janardhana Rao VS Kannan - Supreme CourtGhasi Ram VS Chait Ram Saini - Supreme Court
Order 21 Rule 97 CPC allows the executing court to adjudicate claims of any person resisting or obstructing the delivery of possession, including those not bound by the decree. Tanzeem-e-sufia VS Bibi Haliman - Supreme CourtP. Janardhana Rao VS Kannan - Supreme Court
In such cases, courts emphasize avoiding parallel proceedings and prolonging litigation.
Orders passed under Rules 97, 98, and 99 are appealable. Importantly, courts have clarified their nature:
Court clarifies that appeals under Order 21 Rules 58 and 97-101 should be treated as regular appeals under Section 96, rejecting contrary views from other High Courts. S. Komathi vs M.Balasubramanian - 2024 Supreme(Mad) 2560
The practice labels them as Civil Miscellaneous Appeals procedurally, but they carry decree-like status for appeals. S. Komathi vs M.Balasubramanian - 2024 Supreme(Mad) 2560
Rule 103 CPC explicitly provides appeals from orders under Rules 97, 98, 99, 100, and 101, lying as if from decrees.
Since first appeals against these orders are regular appeals under Section 96 (to the District Court or High Court, depending on value), second appeals under Section 100 CPC may lie if a substantial question of law arises. Section 100 permits second appeals against appellate decrees involving such questions.
However, second appeals are not a matter of right and require certification of substantial law questions. Courts discourage routine second appeals in execution matters to prevent delays. Precedents affirm this pathway, given the decree-equivalent status. S. Komathi vs M.Balasubramanian - 2024 Supreme(Mad) 2560
Rules not applicable to transferee pendente lite... Nothing in rules 98 and 100 shall apply to resistance or obstruction... by a person to whom judgment-debtor has transferred the property after institution of suit. B. M. Sivanarayanan Sah VS Breadway rep. by its Partner C. Asaithambi - 2015 Supreme(Mad) 1466
A decree for partition falling under Section 37(2) of the Kerala Act cannot be executed against a stranger/obstructor or a third person. Thomas Danniel @ Bose VS J. Rajan - 2020 Supreme(Ker) 456
Executing courts must factually analyze to direct separate suits where apt, curbing litigation prolongation.
| Scenario | Rule 97/98 Maintainable? | Appeal Path ||----------|---------------------------|-------------|| Separate title suit filed | No Vol Builders Private Limited VS Janab Salim Saheb - JharkhandVol Builders Private Limited VS Janab Salim Saheb - Jharkhand | Separate suit appeal || Not decree holder/purchaser | No Commissioner of Hazaribagh Nagar Parishad VS Rup Chand Jain - Jharkhand | N/A || Lost prior title suit | No Vol Builders Private Limited VS Janab Salim Saheb - JharkhandVol Builders Private Limited VS Janab Salim Saheb - Jharkhand | Review dismissal || Not bound by decree | Generally separate suit Ghasi Ram VS Chait Ram Saini - Supreme Court | Regular appeals chain || Regular resistance | Yes Salik Ram Singh @ Salik Ram VS Addl. District Judge Court No. 3 Gonda - 2022 Supreme(All) 116 | Sec 96 first, Sec 100 second possible S. Komathi vs M.Balasubramanian - 2024 Supreme(Mad) 2560 |
In summary, while applications under Order 21 Rule 97 and 98 face strict limits, orders thereunder permit regular first appeals, opening doors to second appeals on substantial law questions. Adhere to precedents for efficient execution.
This analysis draws from cited judgments; outcomes vary by facts. Seek professional advice.
#CPCExecution #Order21Rule97 #SecondAppeal
the application under Order 21 Rule 97 and 98. ... Entertaining the application under Order 21 Rule 97 and 98. 3. ... The executing Court allowed the application under Order 21 Rule 59 and proceeded to hold an enquiry on the applications under Order ... entertain applications under Order 21 Rule 97 ....
(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order 21 Rules 97, 98, 101, and 103 - Second appeal against execution ... Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that objections under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC are valid for non-parties ... 21 Rule 97 CPC, affirming joint tenancy rights. ... 21 Rule 97 CPC. ... Having heard learned counsel for the parties, first of all, ....
It is with reference to these provisions that Article 11A of Scheduled I of the Act provided the period of one year to be computed from the date of the order passed under Order 21 Rule 98 CPC. ... Order XXI Rule 97 to Rule 103 CPC. It is worth mentioning at this stage that Sub-Rule (2) of Rule #HL_S....
The court also held that the petitioner had the right to raise objections under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC regarding the execution of the ... 21 Rule 97 CPC, with a directive to expedite the proceedings. ... 21 Rule 97 CPC, and that the trial court must consider these objections before proceeding with the execution of the decree. ... Order 21 Rule 97 provide....
It has been urged on behalf of the petitioners that rule 98 of Order 21 as framed by the High Court in 1966 continued to exist despite section 97 of the Amending Act and despite the fact that it was inconsistent with rule 98 of Order 21 as enacted by the Parliament by the Amending Act of 1976. ... Manu Narang reported in AIR 1985 Bom ....
(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Sections 2(2), 96, 104, Order 21, Rules 58, 97-101 - Appeals arising from execution proceedings ... - Court clarifies that appeals under Order 21 Rules 58 and 97-101 should be treated as regular appeals under Section 96, rejecting ... Insofar as the adjudications made under Order 21, Rule 58 and Order 21#HL....
21 Rule 97 and 98 of CPC. ... entertain applications under Order 21 Rule 97 and 98 of the CPC. ... 21 Rule 97 of CPC. ... Section 151 of CPC and under Order 21 Rule 97 and 98 read with Sect....
21 Rule 101 CPC on ground that it has become functus officio and thereby lost jurisdiction, order passed by it cannot be deemed to be a decree under Order 21 rule 103 CPC. ... If the said condition is fulfilled, the case falls within the mischief of Rule 102 and such applicant cannot place reliance either on Rule #HL....
This refers to Order 21, Rule 101 (As amended by 1976 Act) under which all questions relating to right, title or interest in the property arising between the parties under Order 21, Rule 97 or Rule 99 shall be determined by the Court and not by a separate suit, By the amendment, one has not to go for ... Thus it cannot be said that th....
21 Rule 97 and Order 21 Rule 99 CPC - Maintainability of application under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC by a person claiming independent ... 21 Rule 97 CPC - Interpretation of relevant provisions - Scope and ambit of Order 21 Rules 97 to 103 CPC - Distinction between Order ... The petitioner filed an application under Order ....
The trial court considered the application under Rule 97, 98 and 101 of Order 21 C.P.C. 3. Both the courts below committed a very serious mistake without addressing the scope and ambit of Rule 97, 98 and 101 of Order 21 C.P.C.
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 in obtaining possession of the property, he may make an application to the court complaining of such resistance or obstruction. 11. Order 21 Rule 97, 98, 100, 101, 103 & 104 CPC reads thus: “97.
He has submitted that the obstruction application under Order 21 Rule 97 cannot be adjudicated under Order 21 Rule 98 and 100, if the sale was effected after the institution of the suit. "Rules not applicable to transferee pendente lite.- As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the first respondent plaintiff, the obstruction application has to berejected in limini without going into the merits of the case in view of order 21 Rule 102.
As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the first respondent plaintiff, the obstruction application has to be rejected in limini without going into the merits of the case in view of order 21 Rule 102. "Rules not applicable to transferee pendente lite.- He has submitted that the obstruction application under Order 21 Rule 97 cannot be adjudicated under Order 21 Rule 98 and 100, if the sale was effected after the institution of the suit.
As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the first respondent plaintiff, the obstruction application has to be rejected in limini without going into the merits of the case in view of order 21 Rule 102. He has submitted that the obstruction application under Order 21 Rule 97 cannot be adjudicated under Order 21 Rule 98 and 100, if the sale was effected after the institution of the suit. "Rules not applicable to transferee pendente lite.-
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
