Bombay High Court
SMT. AMINA MANZOOR AHMED ANSARI, THR. COA.ASHIQUE AHMED MANZOOR AHMED ANSARIversusSMT. SARWARI SHABBIR AHMED ANSARI AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The order dated 17 January 2019 permitting the respondent‑obstructionist to file interrogatories is set aside as unsustainable.
Summary
The petitioner challenged an order of the Civil Judge Junior Division, Bhiwandi that permitted the respondent‑obstructionist to file interrogatories under Order XI Rules 1 and 12 and CPC sections 30 and 32 in an execution proceeding. The High Court held that the burden of proving an independent right to occupy the property lies solely on the obstructionist and that he cannot rely on interrogatories to extract information from the decree‑holder. The Court observed that while an application under Order XXI Rule 97 is decided as a suit, it does not convert the proceeding into a full trial permitting extensive discovery. Consequently, the order allowing interrogatories was deemed unsustainable and was set aside. The execution proceedings must now continue without the influence of the struck‑down order.
Issues considered
- Whether a respondent‑obstructionist may file interrogatories under Order XI Rules 1 and 12 and CPC sections 30 and 32 in an execution‑obstruction proceeding.
- Whether the burden of proving an independent right to occupy the property rests on the obstructionist.
- Whether the order allowing interrogatories is valid in the context of an Order XXI Rule 97 application.
Legislation cited
- Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order XI — s. 1, 12
- Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order XXI — s. 101, 97
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. 30, 32
Subjects
- execution of decree
- obstruction to execution
- interrogatories
- burden of proof
- CPC Order XI
- CPC Order XXI
- decree holder
Judgment
Neeta Sawant 909-WP-5672-2019.docx
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 5672 OF 2019
Smt. Amina Manzoor Ahmed Ansari, ...Petitioner
through COA. Ashique Ahmed
Manzoor Ahmed Ansari
: Versus :
Smt. Sarwari Shabbir Ahmed Ansari ...Respondents
& Ors.
Mr. Jamshed Ansari, for the Petitioner.
Mr. Satish Kumbhar, for Respondent Nos.1 and 2.
CORAM: SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
DATED: 7 OCTOBER 2026.
P.C.:
1) The petition challenges order dated 17 January 2019 passed
by the Civil Judge Junior Division, Bhiwandi on application at Exhibit-
73. The Executing Court has allowed the application at Exhibit-73 by
which the Obstructionist/Respondent had sought permission to file the
interrogatories under the provisions of Order XI Rules 1 and 12 and
Sections 30 and 32 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (Code).
2) I have heard Mr. Ansari, the learned counsel appearing for
the Petitioner and Mr. Kumbhar, the learned counsel appearing for
Respondent Nos.1 and 2.
PAGE NO. 1 of 2
Wednesday, 7 October 2026
Neeta Sawant 909-WP-5672-2019.docx
3) The Respondent-Obstructionist has presented its
obstruction to execution of the decree. In an enquiry to be conducted
under Order 21 Rules 97 and 101 of the Code, the Obstructionist will
have to establish his independent right to occupy the property against
which the decree is sought to be executed. The burden is on the
Obstructionist to prove existence of his independent right to occupy the
property. In the present case, the Obstructionist has led evidence. The
decreeholder has chosen not to lead evidence. This does not mean that
Obstructionist will have a right to file interrogatories and extract
information from the decreeholder. The Obstructionist has to stand or
fall on its own legs and cannot depend upon information that may be
available with the decreeholder. Though an application under Order 21
Rule 97 of the Code needs to be decided as if it is a Suit, this does not
mean that the Obstructionist proceedings can be taken to ludicrous
level of full fledged trial of the suit. In the present case, Obstructionist
has led evidence and the Executing Court will decide whether there
exists an independent right in favour of the Obstructionist to oppose
execution of the decree on property in his occupation.
4) In view of the above discussion, the impugned order is
unsustainable. The Petition accordingly succeeds. Order dated 17
January 2019 is set aside. The execution proceedings shall however be
decided by the Executing Court uninfluenced by any observations
made in the order.
Digitally
signed by [SANDEEP V. MARNE , J.]
NEETA
NEETA SHAILESH
SHAILESH SAWANT
SAWANT Date:
2026.10.07
14:57:15
+0530
PAGE NO. 2 of 2
Wednesday, 7 October 2026
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.