Order XXI Rule 97 CPC | Decree Execution Can't Be Stalled By Raising Belated Objection : Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has observed that execution proceedings cannot be stalled by raising a belated objection to the decree when the objector had a fair chance and knowledge about the passing of a decree during the earlier stage of challenge to the execution of a decree.
A bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K. Vinod Chandran set aside the Bombay High Court's Aurangabad bench order, which had interfered with the Executing Court and First Appellate Court's decision to decline the execution of a decree passed in the Appellant's favour.
The dispute arises out of a decree passed in 2017 in favour of the Appellant-decree-holder for the recovery of dues arising from a loan transaction. The loan had been availed for a family-run business in which the Respondent-judgment debtor and his family members, including his mother, were actively involved. Upon default in repayment, the Appellant initiated execution proceedings to enforce the decree against the property in question.
Execution proceedings have remained pending for nearly nine years, during which multiple objections were filed by or on behalf of the judgment debtor. Each of these objections was considered and dismissed by the executing court, allowing the process to continue toward enforcement.
At a significantly advanced stage of the execution, when the threat of dispossession became imminent, the mother of the original judgment debtor filed a fresh objection under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC. She claimed an independent 1/3rd share in the property sought to be proceeded against, asserting a proprietary interest that would, if accepted, impede the execution.
The decree-holder opposed the objection, contending that the objector had been residing in the property throughout and was fully aware of both the original suit and the prolonged execution proceedings. It was further argued that the objection was belated, lacked bona fides, and was strategically raised to delay recovery.
Both the executing court and first appellate court dismissed the belated objection; however, the High Court allowed the same, prompting the decree holder to appeal to the Supreme Court.
Setting aside the impugned decision, the Court observed that it was impermissible on the party of the third party seeking objection against the execution of a decree to make a belated objection when they have a fair chance and opportunity to object against the decree. Since the mother of the original judgment debtor was aware about the erstwhile execution proceedings and objections proceedings against the decree, it was impermissible on her part to later on oppose the execution of a decree, as it would be nothing but a deliberate attempt to stall the decree's execution in the Appellant's favour.
“The objector having asserted that she was all along residing in the said property, cannot feign ignorance of the execution proceedings and delay a proper objection being taken up till dispossession is threatened. The suit was decreed in 2017, and the execution proceedings are pending for the last nine years, when several objections were raised, all of which stood declined. A further objection by the mother of the original judgment debtor claiming 1/3rd share in the property at this stage, when all along the mother and the sons were carrying on the business together, to further the prospects of which, the loan admittedly was taken, is a deliberate attempt to stall the recovery.”, the court observed.
Accordingly, the appeal was allowed.
“We find absolutely no reason to sustain the impugned order. The facts are clear and the objection was declined on a proper consideration of the same. The opportunity to lead evidence and prove the claim of co-ownership of the subject property has been proffered merely on a possibility of the claim being sustainable, especially when there was nothing produced to prima facie substantiate such a claim and the obvious facts being clearly against such a claim. On the above reasoning, we set aside the impugned order and restore the order of the Executing Court affirmed by the 1st Appellate Court, rejecting the objection. The property, if not handed over as yet shall be expeditiously vacated and handed over to the appellant by the Executing Court. The appeal stands allowed.”
Cause Title: Challani Ginning and Pressing Factory Versus Kamal
Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 444
Appearance:
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sandeep Sudhakar Deshmukh, AOR Mr. P. F. Patni, Adv. Mr. Nishant Sharma, Adv. Mr. Ankur Savadikar, Adv. Mr. Kartik Sharma, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sudhanshu Choudhari, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sagar Pahune Patil, AOR Ms. Pranjal Chapalgaonkar, Adv.