Belated Objection Cannot Stall Execution of Decree

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

A Division Bench of the Supreme Court of India, comprising Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K. Vinod Chandran, in Challani Ginning and Pressing Factory v. Kamal (2026), set aside an order of the Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) that had interfered with the concurrent decisions of the Executing Court and the First Appellate Court, both of which had declined to entertain a belated objection to the execution of a decree. 

• The Court held that a third party who had prior knowledge of the decree and the ongoing execution proceedings cannot raise a fresh objection at an advanced stage of execution merely to obstruct recovery, as such conduct amounts to a deliberate attempt to stall the enforcement of the decree.

What was the Background of Challani Ginning and Pressing Factory v. Kamal (2026) Case? 

• A decree was passed in 2017 in favour of the Appellant-decree-holder for recovery of dues arising from a loan transaction. 
• The loan had been availed for a family-run business in which the Respondent-judgment debtor and his family members, including his mother, were actively involved. 
• Upon default in repayment, the Appellant initiated execution proceedings to enforce the decree against the property in question. 
• Execution proceedings remained pending for nearly nine years, during which multiple objections were filed by or on behalf of the judgment debtor — each of which was considered and dismissed by the Executing Court. 
• At a significantly advanced stage of execution, when the threat of dispossession became imminent, the mother of the original judgment debtor filed a fresh objection under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC, claiming an independent 1/3rd share in the subject property. 
• The decree-holder opposed the objection, contending that the objector had been residing in the property throughout and was fully aware of both the original suit and the prolonged execution proceedings, and that the objection was belated, mala fide, and strategically raised to delay recovery. 
• Both the Executing Court and the First Appellate Court dismissed the belated objection. 
• The Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench), however, allowed the objection, prompting the decree-holder to approach the Supreme Court.

What were the Court's Observations? 

• On Belated Objections to Execution: The Court held that it is impermissible for a third party to raise a belated objection to the execution of a decree when that party had a fair chance and prior knowledge of the decree and the execution proceedings at an earlier stage. Such an objection, raised only when dispossession becomes imminent, amounts to a deliberate attempt to stall enforcement. 
• On the Conduct of the Objector: The Court observed that the objector, having asserted that she had been residing in the subject property throughout, could not claim ignorance of the execution proceedings. The suit had been decreed in 2017, and execution had been pending for nine years during which several objections — all of which were declined — had been raised. A fresh objection at this stage by the mother of the judgment debtor, claiming a 1/3rd share, was inconsistent with the admitted facts regarding the family's joint conduct of business. 
• On the Absence of Prima Facie Proof: The Court noted that no material had been produced to prima facie substantiate the claim of co-ownership of the subject property, and that the obvious facts on record were clearly against such a claim. The mere possibility of a claim being sustainable did not justify extending an opportunity to lead evidence. 
• On Restoring the Orders Below: Finding no reason to sustain the High Court's order, the Court set aside the impugned order and restored the concurrent orders of the Executing Court and the First Appellate Court rejecting the objection. It directed that the property, if not yet handed over, be expeditiously vacated and handed over to the Appellant by the Executing Court.

What is Order XXI Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908? 

• Order XXI Rule 97 provides a legal remedy when decree-holders or auction purchasers face resistance while taking possession of immovable property.  
• The aggrieved party must file a specific application to the court complaining about the resistance or obstruction.  
• Upon receiving such application, the court must adjudicate the matter through a summary proceeding rather than requiring a separate suit.  
• This provision ensures effective implementation of court decrees by empowering courts to remove obstacles preventing execution of their own orders.  
• The court will determine if the resistance is justified and may pass appropriate orders to ensure rightful possession.