Allowed¶6

Sakunthala v. a.M.Avudaiappan

Madras HC25 Jun 2025CRP/2834/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

S.115 CPC civil revision; Order XXI Rule 97 / Rule 99 CPC third-party objection in execution; executing court must decide obstruction claim on merits, not dismiss as infructuous; delivery order set aside; E.A.No.6 of 2019 restored; execution of eviction decree in RCOP No.18 of 2016; E.P.No.21 of 2019; District Munsif Thiruvotriyur; executing court jurisdiction over execution disputes; Madras High Court; N. Sathish Kumar J.; decided 25.06.2025.

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision Petition allowed; impugned delivery order dated 01.08.2019 passed by the Executing Court set aside; E.A.No.6 of 2019 restored and to be decided on its own merits within two months of receipt of a copy of the order; delivery order to be issued thereafter only if the application is found to have no merits; no costs; connected miscellaneous petition (CMP No.18549 of 2019) closed.

Sakunthala Vs a.M.Avudaiappan — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶6

Issue for consideration

Whether the delivery order dated 01.08.2019 in E.P.No.21 of 2019 could stand when the revision petitioner's objection application under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC (claiming ownership/obstruction) was returned and dismissed as infructuous without being decided on merits by the Executing Court.

¶1

Court's answer

If any objection, response or obstruction to possession of immovable property is made by any third party under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC, it must be decided by the Trial Court (Court dealing with the execution application) on merits.

¶5

Ratio / Principle

All questions arising between the parties to the proceedings on an application filed under Order 21 Rule 97 or Rule 99 CPC shall be determined by the Court dealing with the application, and not by a separate suit.

¶5

Key takeaways

The Executing Court has jurisdiction to go into all disputes arising in execution, particularly with regard to responses to objections made by any of the parties.ratio¶5
The Execution Court erred by dismissing the Order 21 Rule 97 CPC application as infructuous instead of adjudicating it on merits, thereby shirking its responsibility.ratio¶5

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Civil Revision Petition under Section 115 CPC filed by Sakunthala, objector in execution, allowed by the Madras High Court (N. Sathish Kumar, J., 25.06.2025). The District Munsif, Thiruvotriyur, executing the eviction decree in RCOP No.18 of 2016 (E.P.No.21 of 2019), had dismissed the revision petitioner's ownership/obstruction application E.A.No.6 of 2019 under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC as infructuous and yet passed a delivery order on 01.08.2019. Holding that any objection, response or obstruction by a third party under Order 21 Rule 97 (or Rule 99) must be decided on merits by the Court dealing with the application and not by a separate suit, and that the Executing Court has jurisdiction over all such disputes, the Court set aside the impugned delivery order, directed restoration and merits-decision of E.A.No.6 of 2019 within two months, with a delivery order to follow only if the application fails; no costs; connected CMP closed.

¶1

CRP(NPD) No. 2834 of 2019

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

Dated : 25.06.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR

¶6

CRP(NPD) No.2834 of 2019 and CMP No.18549 of 2019

Sakunthala

... Petitioner

Vs.

A.M.Avudaiappan

¶11

N. Krishnamoorthy ... Respondents

¶12

Prayer : Civil Revision petition has been filed under Section 115 of the CPC to set aside the order made in E.P.No.21 of 2019 in RCOP No.18/16 made by the learned District Munsif Judge, Thiruvotriyur dated 01.08.2019.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr. S. Pon Jeganathan For respondents : Mr. R.Suresh Kumar, for R1

¶14

: R2- Court notice returned as No such person.

¶15

1/6

¶16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶17

CRP(NPD) No. 2834 of 2019

¶18

ORDER

¶19

Challenge has been made to the order passed in execution petition

¶20

despite returning the application filed under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC to implead the revision petition as obstructor.

¶21

The first respondent had filed a rent control proceedings in RCOP. No.18 of 2016 on the fie of the District Munsif, Thiruvottiyur, as if he is the owner of the property, against the 2^nd respondent/tenant for eviction stating that there is a jural relationship. The Rent Court vide order dated 07.12.2018, ordered eviction. Thereafter, E.P.No.21 of 2019 was filed by the first respondent for delivery of vacant possession.. At this stage, an application in E.A.No.6 of 2019 has been filed by the revision petitioner under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC claiming that he is the owner of the property and the same was dismissed by the Executing Court vide order dated 29.08.2019. On 01.08.2019, the impugned order of delivery has been passed and the matter is still pending for taking steps. Against which , the present revision has been filed.

¶22

I have heard both sides and perused the materials available on

¶23

2/6

¶24

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶25

CRP(NPD) No. 2834 of 2019

¶26

records carefully.

¶27

Though the first respondent would contend that he has purchased the property and that the subject property is only a poramboke land, the title deed is not with him. However, the same does not arise in this revision. Whereas, it is the admitted case of the objector/revision petitioner that he is in possession of the property and there is no landlord and tenant relationship between the first respondent and the 2^nd respondent. The tenant is none other than the grand daughter's husband of the revision petitioner.

¶28

On perusal of the order placed before this Court clearly indicates that the application under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC was dismissed as infructuous. The Execution Court, in fact, shirked his responsibility in deciding the said application on merits. If any objection is made under Order 21 Rule 97 or any response or obstruction to possession of the immovable property is made by any third party, the same has to be decided by the Trial Court. All questions arising between the parties to the proceedings on an application filed under Order 21 Rule 97 or Rule 99 shall be determined by the Court dealing with application and not by 3/6

¶29

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶30

CRP(NPD) No. 2834 of 2019

¶31

separate suit. The Executing Court has jurisdiction to go into all the disputes, particularly, with regard to the response to the objections made by any of the parties.

¶32

In view of the above, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed and

¶33

the impugned order dated 01.08.2019 passed by the Executing Court for delivery stands set aside. The Executing court is directed to restore the E.A.No.6 of 2019 and decide the said application on his own merits, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and thereafter, if the Executing Court finds that the application has no merits, then proceed with issuing delivery order. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

25.06.2025

mrp