Source: Allahabad High Court   

Why in News? 

Recently, Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal held that a revisional court cannot usurp the jurisdiction of the executing court by deciding an application under Order XXI Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) and must remand the matter if preliminary issues like res judicata need adjudication. 

• The Allahabad High Court held this in the matter of Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI (2025). 

What was the Background of Smt. Santosh Awasthi v. Smt. Urmila Jain  (2025) Case? 

• Malti Devi, the original landowner, sold 1.8 acres of land to Roop Chand Jain, who subsequently divided it into multiple plots. 
• On 03rd December 1976, Roop Chand Jain sold plot number 767 to Sushila Kumari, wife of Ram Narayan. 
• On 20.05.1979, Urmila Jain purchased 9 decimal of plot number 776 from Malti Devi, along with several other plots. 
• Following Sushila Kumari's death in 1986, Urmila Jain filed a suit for permanent injunction on 28th January 1991 against Ram Narayan and his sons regarding plots 776 and 771. 
• On 21st January 1991, a correction deed/titimma was executed by the Power of Attorney holder of Roop Chand Jain, changing the plot number from 767 to 776 in favor of Ram Narayan. 
• During the pendency of the suits, Ram Narayan transferred the disputed property to Smt. Santosh Awasthi (the petitioner) on 12.01.2001. 
• The suit filed by Urmila Jain was decreed on 14.10.2003, while the suit filed by Ram Narayan was dismissed, and his subsequent appeal was also dismissed on 13.04.2010. 
• Smt. Santosh Awasthi filed an application under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC in the execution proceedings, which remained pending for approximately 10 years (2014-2024).

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Court observed that where transfer of property occurs during pendency of litigation (lis pendens), such transfer is governed by Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 making the transferee bound by the final decree even if not party to the suit. 
• The Court noted that Order XXI Rule 102 expressly bars transferees pendente lite from seeking relief under Rules 98 and 100, rendering the petitioner's application under Order XXI Rule 97 non-maintainable from the outset. 
• The Court held that once it was admitted that the petitioner was a transferee pendente lite, the executing court should have promptly decided the objection rather than postponing the issue of res judicata for final determination after evidence. 
• The Court observed that the revisional court exceeded its jurisdiction by dismissing the application under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC rather than remanding the matter to the executing court with appropriate directions. 
• The Court emphasized that execution proceedings should be disposed of expeditiously, referencing the Supreme Court's directive that such proceedings should be completed within six months from filing, which may be extended only by recording reasons in writing for delay. 
• The Court found that no offence against the judicial process was more egregious than allowing execution proceedings to linger indeterminately, thereby frustrating decree holders from realizing the fruits of their litigation. 

What is Order XXI Rule 97 of CPC? 

• 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.