Executing Court Must Conduct Full-Fledged Inquiry Under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC When Third-Party Objects To Possession: Supreme Court

"If a purported stranger to the Decree resists execution, the DHR’s sole remedy lies under Order 21 Rule 97 of the CPC. The Holder cannot bypass such obstruction and insist on the reissuance of the warrant for possession under Order 21 Rule 35." Supreme Court, in a significant ruling dated October 14, 2026, held that an Executing Court is legally mandated to conduct a comprehensive inquiry into the rights and titles of a third-party objector under Order 21 Rule 97 of the CPC before proceeding with the delivery of possession.

A bench of Justice S.V.N. Bhatti and Justice N. V. Anjaria observed that misquoting a provision in an application is not a ground to reject a valid legal claim, emphasizing that the focus must remain on the actual dispute of identity and title of the property.

Erroneous Procedural Dismissal Set Aside

The dispute arose after the Decree Holder obtained an ex parte decree for specific performance. When the appellant, as a third-party objector, resisted the execution proceedings, the trial court and the High Court dismissed the claim petition, primarily on the ground that the appellant had invoked Order 21 Rule 58 CPC instead of the appropriate provision. The Supreme Court termed this approach illegal, asserting that the court's duty is to address the substance of the grievance rather than allowing technicality to defeat justice.

Mandatory Scope of Inquiry Under Order 21 Rules 97 to 101 CPC

The Court reaffirmed the principle that when an execution is resisted by any person, including a stranger to the decree, the Executing Court is obligated to adjudicate the objection by conducting a full-fledged inquiry. The bench noted that Rules 97 to 101 of Order 21 are designed specifically to resolve such conflicts by examining the independent rights, titles, or interests claimed by the objector.

"Courts adjudicating an Application under Order 21 Rule 97 must do so in accordance with Rule 101 of the CPC and conduct a full-fledged inquiry into all questions, including those relating to the right, title, or interest in the property arising between the parties."

Requirement to Correlate Property Identity in Records

The bench emphasized that in matters of execution involving conflicting claims over immovable property, the decisive factor is the identity of the property as reflected in old and contemporaneous revenue or municipal records. The Court found that the lower courts had failed to critically examine whether the suit property was identical to the property claimed by the Waqf, instead improperly shifting the burden of proof onto the appellant.

Need for Fresh Adjudication Based on Evidence

Finding that the previous findings did not conform to established legal principles, the Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgments. The matter has been remanded to the VII Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad, with directions to permit both parties to file additional pleas and adduce further evidence. The Executing Court is now tasked with conducting a fresh inquiry to determine the competing titles in light of the principles laid down by the Apex Court.

Date of Decision: 14 October 2026