Order XXI of CPC

Source: Orissa High Court 

Why in News? 

Recently, Justice Ananda Chandra Behera recently ruled that the principle of res judicata under Section 11 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) does not apply to execution proceedings under Order XXI, as it is a self-contained and independent code, allowing decree-holders to file fresh execution applications despite technical defects. 

• The Orissa High Court held this in the matter of Santosh Patra v. State of Odisha & Ors. (2025).

What was the Background of Santosh Patra v. State of Odisha & Ors. (2025) Case ? 

• The petitioner, Santosh Patra, was the original decree-holder (DHR) in Money Suit No.76 of 1987, which had resulted in a judgment and decree in his favour. 
• Pursuant to the said decree, the petitioner instituted Execution Case No.04 of 1991 before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sonepur, seeking to execute the decree passed in Money Suit No.76 of 1987. 
• The execution petition filed by the petitioner sought recovery of certain amounts and properties from the judgment-debtors (JDRs), including movable properties in the form of two government vehicles and immovable properties as mentioned in the schedule attached to the execution application. 
• The learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sonepur, vide order dated 27.09.2024, dropped the Execution Case No.04 of 1991 on technical grounds. 
• The execution petition was rejected on the ground that it was not executable due to several deficiencies, namely: the decree-holder had failed to indicate the exact amount of money to be realised from the judgment-debtors; no valuation of the two government vehicles was provided; and no valuation of the immovable properties mentioned in the schedule was furnished. 
• Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 27.09.2024, the petitioner filed the present revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, before the Orissa High Court challenging the order dropping the execution case. 
• The petitioner contended that the execution case ought not to have been dropped without affording him an opportunity to rectify the technical defects and supply the requisite particulars as required under law. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Court observed that it is a fundamental principle of civil law that the doctrine of res judicata is not applicable to execution proceedings under the CPC. 
• The Court noted that Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which contains 106 Rules in total for execution of decrees and orders, constitutes a self-contained and independent Order. 
• By virtue of Order XXI being a self-contained code, the Court observed that the principles of res judicata enshrined in Section 11 of the Civil Procedure Code are not applicable to execution proceedings. 
• The Court observed that in cases where an order is passed to drop execution proceedings on the ground of any technicality, the judgment-debtor is not precluded under law from filing a fresh application for execution by providing correct particulars to make the execution petition executable. 
• The Court held that a decree-holder (DHR) shall not be debarred from obtaining the fruits of a decree merely on account of technical defects in the application for execution, such as non-furnishing of particulars of movable and immovable properties. 
• The Court observed that as per law, an opportunity is required to be given to the decree-holder by the court to supply the required particulars in the application for execution in order to remove the defects therein. 
• The Court found that the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sonepur had passed the impugned order dropping Execution Case No.04 of 1991 without providing any opportunity to the petitioner to supply the required particulars of the properties indicated in the execution application. 
• The Court observed that the petitioner had not been given an opportunity to comply with the provisions of Order XXI, Rule 11, Sub-clause (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure and Appendix (E) No.6, which mandate the furnishing of specific particulars for execution. 
• The Court held that in the absence of affording such an opportunity to the petitioner, the impugned order dated 27.09.2024 could not be sustained under law. 
• The Court concluded that there was no justification under law to disallow the revision petition filed by the petitioner.

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

• Order XXI is titled "Execution of Decrees and Orders" and is a comprehensive code governing the execution of court decrees and orders. 
• Order XXI contains 106 Rules in total, making it a self-contained and independent order within the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 
• The Order provides for various modes of paying money under a decree, including payment inside and outside the court. 
• It prescribes the jurisdiction of courts executing decrees, including provisions for transferring execution to courts of other jurisdictions and Courts of Small Causes. 
• The Order details the procedure for filing applications for execution, including oral and written applications, and specifies requirements for applications seeking arrest, attachment of movable property, and attachment of immovable property. 
• It provides for the issuance of process for execution and circumstances under which courts may stay execution of decrees. 
• Order XXI specifies different modes of execution depending upon the nature of the decree, including decrees for payment of money, delivery of specific movable or immovable property, specific performance, restitution of conjugal rights, injunctions, and execution of documents. 
• The Order contains detailed provisions regarding attachment of various types of property, including movable property, agricultural produce, debts, shares, salary and allowances, partnership property, negotiable instruments, and immovable property. 
• It provides for adjudication of claims and objections to attachment of property by third parties. 
• Order XXI contains comprehensive provisions relating to sale of attached property, both movable and immovable, including proclamation requirements, conduct of sales, rights of purchasers, and setting aside of sales on various grounds. 
• The Order provides for delivery of possession of property to decree-holders or purchasers and remedies in cases of resistance, obstruction, or dispossession. 
• It includes provisions for procedural matters such as adjournment or stoppage of sales, restrictions on bidding by certain persons, and treatment of orders passed under certain rules as decrees.