Order 21 Rule 97- Trial Court Can Allow Objector To Enquire In Execution Proceedings Only If His Right Is Affected: Karnataka HC
The Karnataka High Court has held that under Order XXI Rule 97, the Trial Court can allow the objector to enquire in the execution proceedings if his right is affected.
The Court was deciding an appeal filed by the objector under Section 96 of CPC for setting aside the order of the Additional City and Civil Judge for having rejected the application of the objector filed under Order XXI Rule 97 read with Section 151 of CPC.
A Single Bench of Justice K. Natarajan held, “It is also submitted that some of the persons already filed suits, which came to be dismissed and they already filed appeals before the High Court. Such being the case, considering their application under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC for making enquiry does not arise as the applicant does not have any title over the land in Sy. Nos.9/3 and 9/4, which is the subject matter of execution proceedings. When there is no reference in respect of Sy. Nos.9/3 and 9/4 in the sale deed, the question of allowing the appellant to object the petition for making enquiry, does not arise.”
The Bench said that if at all the appellants have any right under the sale deed and if they are in possession, they must file a suit and establish their rights independently.
Advocate K.S. Harish appeared for the appellant while Advocates Yeshu Mishra and Unnikrishnan appeared for the respondents.
In this case, the appellant filed an application under Order XXI and Rule 97 of CPC contending that he was the absolute owner of the property having purchased from one woman and her son through the sale deed. The land owners and judgment debtors jointly executed sale agreement with a housing society for the sale of the said property. The judgment debtor mischievously colluded with decree holder and by suppressing material facts, the suit came to be decreed. By virtue of the decree, the execution petition was filed for targeting the individual site owners in the layout and dispossessing and the other site owners by obtaining delivery warrant.
The decree holder filed statement of objection by denying the contention of the objector. It was contended that the boundaries mentioned in the sale deed were not tallying with the suit schedule premises. It was contended that the objector had no manner of right title or interest over the suit schedule property, hence, prayed for rejecting the application. After hearing the arguments of counsel for the parties, the Trial Court dismissed the application vide an order, which was under challenge before the High Court.
The High Court in view of the above facts said, “Against the order of dismissal of their appeals, one Krishnamurthy and others including the Co-operative Society Welfare people filed civil appeals to the Hon'ble Supreme Court in C.A. Nos.2701- 2704/2020 and the Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed the appeals. Therefore, once they filed similar application for impleading themselves as party before the original suit and if it was dismissed, it would indicate that it has attained finality in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.”
The Court further noted that the Supreme Court has held that the third party objector should be allowed only to determine the rights of the objector in the suit schedule property in order to determine the rights of the objector and the Court is not obliged to determine the question, merely because the resistor raised it.
“Herein, in this case, the appellant is not at all concerned with the land in Sy. Nos.9/3 ad 9/4 and, his title deed and identity of the property elsewhere. Such being the case, there was need for the trial Court to allow the objector for making an enquiry to determine the right of the appellant in the execution proceeding. Therefore, the trial Court has rightly dismissed the application without going into the enquiry”, also said the Court.
The Court, therefore, concluded that as per the settled principles of law, the Trial Court can allow the objector to enquire in the execution proceedings if his right is affected and hence, it is not necessary for making an enquiry.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the appeal and refused to interfere with the order of the Trial Court.
Cause Title- B.K. Gopala v. Nagarathnamma & Ors.
