Click the Play button to listen to article

The Allahabad High Court has held that its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India may be exercised to direct an executing court to decide an objection under Order XXI Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 within a fixed period, without the High Court going into the merits of the objection.

Such a direction, it held, neither curtails the objector's opportunity to contest nor predetermines the outcome.

Justice Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava held,

“The supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India may be exercised to ensure that execution proceedings do not remain pending for an unduly prolonged period and that the rights of the decree-holder are not rendered illusory by avoidable delay. Where the circumstances warrant such intervention, appropriate time-bound directions may be issued to secure the expeditious progress of the proceedings, without interfering with the adjudication of disputed questions falling within the jurisdiction of the executing court.”

Smt. Nirmala Devi had sued Punjab National Bank and its officials in SCC Suit No. 52 of 2010 for eviction and arrears of rent in respect of premises No. A-38, Saket, Meerut. The suit was decreed on 27.08.2012. While it was pending, Meerut Sahkari Awas Samiti Limited had sought impleadment, which was rejected on 25.01.2012.

The petitioner, claiming under a registered Will dated 20.11.2021 executed by Smt. Nirmala Devi, who died on 03.02.2024, instituted Execution Case No. 7 of 2025, in which the Society objected under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC. In the Bank's revision against the decree, the High Court had on 11.03.2026 directed it to deposit the keys, which was done on 01.04.2026. The executing court then deferred the petitioner's application for release of the keys and delivery of possession till the objection was decided.

The Court observed that the maintainability of the objection and the rights asserted by the Society fall within the domain of the executing court.

“The need to afford a fair opportunity to an objector does not justify avoidable or indefinite delay in execution proceedings; equally, the objective of expeditious execution cannot be used to bypass the procedure prescribed for adjudicating an objection.”

On the effect of the earlier rejection, it held,

“The applicability of res judicata or constructive res judicata cannot be determined merely by reference to the fact that the earlier impleadment application was rejected.”

Relying on Rahul S. Shah v. Jinendra Kumar Gandhi, which it said underlines that avoidable procedural delay must not deprive a successful litigant of the fruits of a decree, the Court held that supervisory jurisdiction may be used to see that execution is not unduly prolonged.

The Additional District Judge, Court No. 18, Meerut was accordingly directed to decide the objection preferably within three months of production of a certified copy of the order, and thereafter to consider the petitioner's application. Expressing no opinion on its maintainability or merits, the Court disposed of the petition.

Tags: