CRP(MD)/2660/2026 of Peter Soundarrajan Vs Krishnan (Died), Nayagam @ P on 28 September 2026

ORDER

This civil revision petition is filed against the docket order dated 03.07.2026 passed in O.S.SR No.1351 of 2026 in E.P.No.1 of 2016 by the Principal District Munsif, Kulithalai.

2. The petitioner filed a petition before the executing Court under Section 47 read with Order XXI Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure, contending that neither he nor his father had executed any sale agreement dated 29.11.1999. He further contended that his father was mentally incapacitated and that the alleged sale agreement had been forged and brought into existence in collusion with one of the petitioner's relatives. It was further stated that, during the pendency of the suit, his father died, whereupon the petitioner and the other legal heirs were brought on record and contested the suit after carrying out the necessary amendment.

3. Thereafter, the petitioner contended that he was not aware of the enquiry proceedings conducted by the trial Court and that he was set ex- parte on 28.10.2005, pursuant to which a judgment was passed against him. He further contended that the trial Court had failed to follow the procedure contemplated under Section 229 and Order XXII Rule 4(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure. Though the trial Court had framed five issues, none of the issues had been answered.

4. In the above circumstances, the petitioner filed a petition seeking a declaration that the judgment passed by the trial Court was a nullity and unenforceable in law, and prayed that an enquiry be conducted in accordance with law. However, without even numbering the said petition, the trial Court dismissed the same by an order dated 03.07.2026, observing as follows: “Petition filed under Section 47 and Order 21 Rule 97 CPC by the petitioner /2nd defendant. The petitioner has appeared in E.P.No.01/2026 on 04.02.2016 through counsel and contest the same till date. He knows all the documents and proceedings. At the instigation of this petitioner his son filed an petition in E.A.No.70 of 2016

under order 21 rule 97 and 151 CPC as a third party and pending. His son also accepted the same in his cross examination in E.A.NO.70/2016. After 10 years laps this petitioner come forward to file this petitioner under Section 21 Rule 97 and Section 47 is not acceptable. He has not filed any appeal against the decree in O.S.No.209 of 2002. On limitation point this petition is not maintainable. Hence, this petition is rejected.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgement in Jini Dhanrajgir and Another Vs. Shibu Mathew and Another reported in (2023)20 Supreme Court Cases, 76, wherein Para Nos.26 to 35, 42 and 45 are extracted hereunder: “ 26. Resting on the aforesaid contentions, Mr. Chitambaresh urged that no case for interference has been set up by the Appellants and that the Executing Court ought to be left free to decide the objections on merits.

27. The only issue that we are tasked to decide at this stage is, whether interference with the common order under appeal is called for or not.

28. In our considered view, for more reason than one, relief claimed by the Appellants ought to be declined.

29. Section 47 of the CPC, being one of the most important provisions relating to execution of decrees, mandates that the court executing the decree shall determine all questions arising between the parties to the suit or their representatives in relation to the execution, discharge, or satisfaction of the decree and that such questions may not be adjudicated in a separate suit. What is intended by conferring exclusive jurisdiction on the executing court is to prevent needless and unnecessary litigation and to achieve speedy disposal of the questions arising for discussion in relation to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree. Should there be any resistance offered or obstruction raised impeding due execution of a decree made by a court of competent jurisdiction, the provisions of Rules 97, 101 and 98 of Order XXI enable the executing court to adjudicate the inter se claims of the decree-holder and the third parties in the execution proceedings themselves to avoid prolongation of litigation by driving the parties to institute independent suits. No wonder, the provisions contained in Rules 97 to 106 of Order XXI of the CPC under the sub-heading “Resistance to delivery of possession to decree-holder or purchaser” have been held by this Court to be a complete code in itself in Brahmdeo Chaudhary (supra) as well as in a decision of recent origin in Asgar vs. Mohan Verma13. In the latter decision, it has been noted that Rules 97 to 103 of Order XXI provide the sole remedy both to parties to a suit as well as to a stranger to the decree put to execution.

30. In Bhanwar Lal vs. Satyanarain14, this Court held that when any person, whether claiming derivative title from the judgment-debtor or sets up his own right, title or interest de hors the judgment debtor, the executing court whilst executing the decree, in addition to the power under Rule 35(3), is empowered to conduct an enquiry whether the obstruction by that person is legal or not. 13 (2020) 16 SCC 230 14 (1995) 1 SCC 6

31. This Court in Noorduddin v. Dr. K.L. Anand15 reiterated that the executing court was bound to adjudicate the claim of an obstructionist and to record a finding allowing or rejecting the claim which was laid before the executing court, the person being neither a party to the earlier proceedings nor the decree being passed against him.

32. Yet again, in Babulal v. Raj Kumar & Ors.16, this Court after setting aside the order impugned held that a determination is required to be conducted under Order XXI Rule 98 before removal of the obstruction caused by the objector and a finding is required to be recorded in that regard. It was also held that the executing court was required to determine the question relating to when the appellants had objected to the execution of the decree as against those appellants who were not parties to the decree for specific performance.

33. The decision in Brahmdeo Chaudhary (supra) cited by Mr. Chitambaresh, is also to the same effect.

34. Considering the scheme of Order XXI Rules 97 to 106, this Court in Silverline Forum Pvt. Ltd. v. Rajiv Trust & Anr. 17 found it difficult to agree with the High Court that resistance or obstruction made by a third party to the decree put to execution cannot be gone into under Order XXI Rule

97. Referring to Rules 97 to 106, this 15 (1995) 1 SCC 242 16 (1996) 3 SCC 154 17 (1998) 3 SCC 723 Court further held that they were intended to deal with every sort of resistance or obstruction raised by any person and that Rule 97(2) made it incumbent on the court to adjudicate upon such complaint in accordance with the procedure laid down. This Court also proceeded to observe: "It is clear that executing court can decide whether the resistor or obstructer is a person bound by the decree and he refuses to vacate the property. That question also squarely falls within the adjudicatory process contemplated in Order 21, Rule 97(2) of the Code. The adjudication. mentioned therein need not necessarily involve a detailed enquiry or collection of evidence. Court can make the adjudication on admitted facts or even on the averments made by the resistor. Of course, the Court can direct the parties to adduce evidence for such determination if the Court deems it necessary".

35. The long line of precedents notwithstanding, it is indeed true that in terms of the ordainment of Rule 102 of Order XXI, Rules 98 and 100 thereof would not apply to resistance or obstruction in execution of a decree for the possession of immovable property by a person to whom the judgment-debtor has transferred the property after the institution of the suit in which the decree was passed.

42. Since evidence is required to be led before it, the Executing Court was well-nigh justified in holding the

objections to be maintainable at this stage not in the sense that the decree cannot be executed against them but in the sense that a prima facie case had been set up for an enquiry to be conducted, and posting the matter for evidence to be led by the parties. We are sure that upon determination of the questions referred to in Rule 101, the Executing Court would proceed in the manner mandated by Rule 98.

45. It is made clear that the Executing Court shall proceed to deal with the application of the Appellants under Rule 97 of Order XXI of the CPC together with the objections raised by the Respondents on their own merits and without being influenced by any observation made in this order which has been necessitated only for disposal of the present appeals.”

6. The Honourable Supreme Court in para 29 held that the Section 47CPC is one of the most important provisions relating to execution of decrees, mandate that the court executing the decree shall determine all questions arising between the parties to the suit or their representatives in relation to the execution, discharge, or satisfaction of the decree and that such questions may not be adjudicated in a separate suit and he further relied upon the judgment in Asma Lateef and Another Vs. Shabbir Ahmad and Other reported in (2024)4 SCC 696 and the judgment in Shreenath and Another Vs. Rajesh and Others, reported in (1998) 4 Supreme Court cases 543.

7. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the materials available on record.

8. On perusal of the judgment dated 28.10.2005, it is evident that the trial Court had framed five issues but had decreed the suit without recording any findings on the issues so framed. Further, when a petition is filed under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the executing Court is required to determine the questions arising between the parties relating to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree. However, in the present case, the trial Court dismissed the petition without even numbering the same, on the ground that the petitioner was aware of the proceedings in the suit. It is true that the petitioner had entered appearance before the trial Court and was subsequently set ex parte. However, after a lapse of nearly 22 years, he has approached the executing Court by filing the present petition challenging the enforceability of the decree, at a stage when the respondents/plaintiffs have initiated execution proceedings seeking delivery of possession.

9. In the above circumstances, when the petitioner has raised specific objections regarding the validity and enforceability of the decree, it is incumbent upon the executing Court to examine the questions raised and determine the same in accordance with law, after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to both parties. Without issuing notice to the respondents and without affording the petitioner an opportunity to substantiate his contentions, the trial Court ought not to have dismissed the petition at the threshold.

10. Accordingly, the order passed by the trial Court is set aside, and the trial Court is directed to issue notice to the other sides, afford an opportunity of hearing to both parties, determine the questions raised in the petition in accordance with law, and pass appropriate orders on merits.

11. With the above observation and direction, this Civil Revision Petition stands allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 28-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No NS

To

1. Krishnan (Died), Nayagam @ Periya Nayagam (Died), 1.Joseph, S/o.Late.Nayagam @ Periya Nayagam, No.81/4, Periyamilaguparai, Trichy.

2. Victor, S/o.Late.Nayagam @ Periya Nayagam, No.81/4, Periyamilaguparai, Trichy.

3. Thomaiyammal, W/o.Late.Nayagam @ Periya Nayagam, No.81/4, Periyamilaguparai, Trichy.

4. Rani, D/o.Late.Nayagam @ Periya Nayagam, No.81/4, Periyamilaguparai, Trichy.

5. Lilly Mary, W/o.Arulsahayaraj, Kolluthinnipatti, Chinthamanipatti Post, Kadavoor Taluk, Karur District. Marudhayee (Died)

6. Murugan, S/o.Late.Krishnan, T.Idayapatti, Kadavoor East, East Ayyampalayam, Therku Kalam, Kadavoor Taluk, Karur District.

7. Thangamani, W/o.Mahamuni, T.Idayapatti, Kadavoor East,

East Ayyampalayam, Therku Kalam, Kadavoor Taluk, Karur District.

8. Kesavan, S/o.Late.Krishnan, T.Idayapatti, Kadavoor East, East Ayyampalayam, Therku Kalam, Kadavoor Taluk, Karur District.

9. Kamaraj, S/o.Late.Krishnan, T.Idayapatti, Kadavoor East, East Ayyampalayam, Therku Kalam, Kadavoor Taluk, Karur District.

10. Palaniammal, D/o.Late.Krishnan, T.Idayapatti, Kadavoor East, East Ayyampalayam, Therku Kalam, Kadavoor Taluk, Karur District.

R.POORNIMA, J. ns CRP(MD) No. 2660 of 2026 28-09-2026