Allahabad High Court
SMT MUNNI DEVIversusANOOP KATIYAR AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL
Holding
The revisional court lacks jurisdiction to decide the application and its order is set aside, with the matter remanded to the Executing Court.
Summary
The petitioner, a third party, filed an application under Order XXI Rule 97 of the CPC in an execution proceeding, which the Executing Court held maintainable. The decree‑holder filed a civil revision against that order, and the revisional court allowed the revision, effectively deciding the application itself. The petitioner contended that the revisional court lacked jurisdiction to decide the merits and should have remanded the matter to the Executing Court. The decree‑holder agreed that the matter could be remitted for fresh consideration. The High Court held that the revisional court had no power to decide the application and set aside its order, remanding the case back to the Executing Court to decide the application within three months. Consequently, the writ petition was allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether a revisional court under Article 227 has jurisdiction to decide the merits of an application filed under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC or must remand the matter to the executing court.
Legislation cited
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. Order XXI Rule 97
Subjects
- Article 227
- Civil Revision
- Execution Proceedings
- Order XXI Rule 97
- Jurisdiction
- Remand
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 12978 of 2026
Smt Munni Devi
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
Anoop Katiyar And Another
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Bhanu Bhushan Jauhari, Rishi Bhushan
Jauhari
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Pawankumar Dubey
Court No. - 9
HON'BLE ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL, J.
1. Heard Sri B.B. Jauhari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri
Pawan Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for respondent no.1.
2. The petitioner, who is the third party, has filed an application under
Order XXI Rule 97 CPC in the execution case filed by the decree-
holder/respondent no.1. The Executing Court held the application to be
maintainable, against which, a civil revision was preferred by the decree-
holder which has been allowed by the order impugned.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the matter should have
been remanded back to the Executing Court as the application was
maintainable, and it should have been decided by the executing Court
itself and not by the revisional Court. According to him, revisional Court
had committed gross illegality by deciding the revision itself.
4. Learned counsel appearing for decree-holder/respondent no.1 fairly
submits that the matter may be remitted back to the Executing Court to
decide the application filed under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC afresh.
5. After hearing counsel for the parties and perusing the material on
record, I find that the order dated 31.07.2026 passed by the revisional
Court is liable to be set aside. As the revisional Court did not have the
power to decide the question itself, it should either have remanded the
matter back for consideration afresh or dismissed the revision.
A227 No. 12978 of 2026
2
6. As the revision has been allowed and the findings have been recorded
by the revisional Court, the order deserved to be set aside. The matter is
remanded back to the Executing Court to decide the application filed
under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC to decide expeditiously within three
months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.
7. Writ petition stands allowed.
(Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.)
September 18, 2026
SK Goswami
Digitally signed by :-
SHIVAKANT GOSWAMI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…