Section 47 CPC Applications Raising Property Rights After Passing Of Decree To Be Treated As Application Under Order 21 Rule 97 : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court recently observed that an application filed under Section 47 of CPC relating to the determination of questions related to the execution of the decree would be deemed as an application filed under Order XXI Rule 97 if it raises questions of right, title, or interest in the property.The Court clarified that while applications under Section 47 of the CPC and Order 21 Rule 97 address distinct proceedings— with the former concerning execution, discharge, or satisfaction of a decree and the latter dealing with resistance or obstruction to possession, including by third parties— an application under Section 47 filed by a judgment debtor or an aggrieved third party will be treated as one under Order 21 Rule 97 if it raises questions of right, title, or interest in the property. In such cases, the executing court must adjudicate these questions under Order 21 Rule 101. A bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Pankaj Mithal heard the case, in which the respondents filed an application under Section 47 of CPC after a decree was passed in the appellant's favor, asserting their status as bona fide cultivating tenants to prevent their dispossession from the property. In the judgment authored by Justice Pardiwala, the Court observed that although the respondent had filed an application under Section 47 of the CPC—where the executing court is not required to adjudicate issues related to rights, interest, or title in the property—it would be treated as an application under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC, eliminating the need for a separate application under that provision. The Court reasoned that since the application under Section 47 CPC raises objections concerning rights in the property, which the executing court cannot determine after the decree has been passed, reclassifying it as an application under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC would empower the executing court to adjudicate such issues. This approach aligns with the legal principle that the executing court cannot question the validity of the decree or go beyond its scope. Applying the law to the facts, the Court observed that the respondents had claimed to be bona fide cultivating tenants to resist dispossession after the decree was passed—an issue they could have raised during the trial. Consequently, the Court treated their Section 47 application as one under Order 21 Rule 97 and adjudicated it under Rule 101. It ultimately held that the respondents had failed to establish an independent right to possession and that their objections were collusive, raised only after the decree was passed. “In such circumstances referred to above the application of the respondents No. 1 and 2 under Section 47 of the CPC bearing R.E.A. No. 163 of 2011 was in substance an application for determination of their possessory rights under Order XXI Rule 97.”, the Court observed.Also From Judgment: Direct Courts To Dispose Execution Petitions Within 6 Months, Hold Presiding Officer Liable On Failure : Supreme Court Asks High CourtsCase Details: PERIYAMMAL (DEAD THR. LRS.) AND ORS Versus V. RAJAMANI AND ANR. ETC|SLP(C) No. 8490-8492/2020 Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 293 Click here to read the judgment

Section 47 CPC Applications Raising Property Rights After Passing Of Decree To Be Treated As Application Under Order 21 Rule 97 : Supreme Court

Yash Mittal

Tags