Introduction 

Order XXI of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) deals with the execution of decrees and orders, which is a critical stage where successful litigants seek to realize the fruits of their litigation. Rules 97 to 106 specifically address an important aspect of execution - resistance or obstruction to possession of immovable property and the legal remedies available to interested parties. 

Rule 97: Resistance or Obstruction to Possession of Immovable Property 

• When a decree-holder for possession of immovable property or a purchaser of such property sold in execution faces resistance or obstruction from any person while obtaining possession, they may file an application to the court. 
• Upon receiving such an application, the court shall proceed to adjudicate it according to the provisions contained in the subsequent rules. 

Rule 98: Orders after Adjudication 

• After determining questions under Rule 101, the court shall:  
  • Either allow the application and direct that the applicant be put in possession of the property or dismiss the application. 
  • Pass any other appropriate order as deemed fit. 
• If the court finds the resistance was without just cause by the judgment-debtor or someone acting on their behalf, it shall order the applicant be put in possession and may order detention of the resisting party for up to thirty days if obstruction continues. 

Rule 99: Dispossession by Decree-Holder or Purchaser 

• When any person other than the judgment-debtor is dispossessed by a decree-holder or purchaser, they may file an application to the court. 
• The court shall proceed to adjudicate upon such application according to the provisions contained in the rules. 

Rule 100: Order to be Passed upon Application Complaining of Dispossession 

• Upon determining questions under Rule 101, the court shall either: 
  • Allow the application and direct restoration of possession to the applicant. 
  • Dismiss the application. 
  • Pass any other appropriate order as deemed fit. 

Rule 101: Question to be Determined 

• All questions between parties (including questions of right, title or interest) arising from applications under Rules 97 or 99 shall be determined by the same court dealing with the application. 
• No separate suit is required, and the court is deemed to have jurisdiction to decide such questions. 

Rule 102: Rules not Applicable to Transferee Lite Pendente 

• These rules do not apply to resistance by a person to whom the judgment-debtor transferred the property after the institution of the suit in which the decree was passed. 

Rule 103: Orders to be Treated as Decrees 

• Orders made under Rules 98 or 100 shall have the same force as decrees and be subject to the same conditions regarding appeals. 

Rule 104: Orders Subject to Pending Suit 

• Orders under Rules 101 or 103 are subject to the result of any pending suit where the party against whom the order is made has sought to establish right to present possession. 

Rule 105: Hearing of Application 

• Provides procedural guidelines for the hearing of applications, including fixing dates and consequences of non-appearance. 

Rule 106: Setting aside Orders passed ex parte 

• Details the procedure for setting aside orders when a party was absent during proceedings, including the 30-day limitation period for such applications. 

Conflict in Interpretation of Order XXI Rule 97 CPC 

• The Supreme Court has issued a notice in a plea raising concerns over judicial inconsistency in interpreting Order XXI Rule 97 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), which pertains to resistance or obstruction in execution of a decree. 
• A conflict was noted between two earlier judgments: 
  • In Brahmdeo Choudhary v. Rishikesh Prasad Jaiswal (1997), the Court held that even third parties facing dispossession could seek relief under Order XXI Rule 97. 
  • In contrast, Sriram Housing Finance v. Omesh Misra Memorial Charitable Trust (2022), took a narrow view, restricting the provision's applicability to decree-holders and auction purchasers. 
• The bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Prasanna B. Varale heard a plea challenging a Madras High Court order that had upheld the trial court’s dismissal of the petitioner’s execution application under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC. 
• The petitioner, wife of a former bank employee accused of embezzlement, claimed the auctioned property was her self-acquired asset and sought to challenge the sale citing procedural irregularities under Order XXI Rules 97, 98, and 26(2) CPC. 
• The lower courts, relying on Sriram Housing Finance, dismissed her plea, holding that third parties could not invoke Order XXI Rule 97. 
• The petitioner contested this reliance, citing Brahmdeo Choudhary, which supports a broader interpretation allowing third-party intervention. 
• Finding an arguable issue due to the conflicting judgments, the Supreme Court issued notice to the respondents. 
• The Court also directed that the petitioner’s possession of the property shall not be disturbed without its permission. 
• The matter is scheduled for hearing again in August 2025. 

Conclusion 

The execution of decrees under the Civil Procedure Code, particularly concerning possession of immovable property, is governed by a comprehensive framework laid down in Rules 97 to 106 of Order XXI. These provisions aim to balance the rights of decree-holders and auction purchasers with those of third parties who may lawfully resist dispossession. However, judicial interpretations, especially concerning the scope of Rule 97, have not been consistent. The ongoing case before the Supreme Court—highlighting the divergence between Brahmdeo Choudhary and Sriram Housing Finance—brings this legal ambiguity into sharp focus. The Court’s eventual ruling is expected to provide much-needed clarity on whether third parties can seek relief under Rule 97 and will have significant implications for future execution proceedings involving contested possession.