Holding

An adjudicatory order passed under Order XXI Rule 97 is deemed a decree, and therefore a revision petition under Section 115 CPC is not maintainable; the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction.

Summary

The appellant obstructed delivery of possession of land that the respondent had obtained by decree. The respondent filed an application under Section 151 CPC before the executing court, which recorded evidence and adjudicated the matter, effectively treating it as an application under Order XXI Rule 97. The executing court dismissed the application as not maintainable, and the respondent filed a revision petition under Section 115 CPC before the High Court, which was allowed. The Supreme Court held that an application adjudicated under Order XXI Rule 97 is deemed a decree, against which only an appeal lies, and therefore a revision under Section 115 is barred. Consequently, the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction, and the revision order was set aside. The appeal was allowed.

Issues considered

Whether an application filed under Section 151 CPC but adjudicated as per Order XXI Rule 97 is to be treated as a decree for appellate purposes
Whether a revision petition under Section 115 CPC is maintainable against such an adjudicatory order
Whether the High Court had jurisdiction to entertain the revision petition

Legislation cited

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908s. 115, s. 151, s. Order XXI Rule 97, s. Rule 100, s. Rule 103, s. Rule 98

Subjects

possession of landexecution of decreeobstructionSection 151 CPCOrder XXI Rule 97revision under Section 115 CPCappellate jurisdictioncivil procedure

Judgment

A S. RAJESWARI
v
S.N. KlJLASEKARAN AND ORS.

MARCH 29, 2006
B
[B.P. SINGH AND AL TAMAS KABIR. JJ.]

Cude of Civil Procedure, 1908--Sections I 5 I and I I 5-0rder XX! Rule
97 -Possession of land claimed pursuant tu execution of decree--Dn
C obstruction to delivery of possession, application filed under Section I5 I
CPC dismissed as not maintainahle afier recording of evidence--Against this.
revision petition under Section 115 to High Court allowed-On appeal, held:
Though application ought to hare heen filed under Order XX/, Rule <)7
-
ins1ead uf Section 151. bw as executing court recorded evidence and thereupon
adjudicated in the matter. it wos in suhstanc!! treated as under the former
D provision-- But in this Fie11·. 1he order passed in 1hat proceeding must he
treatl!d as a decree against 11hich unly an appeal lay tu appellate court, ,111d
revision peti1iun unda s.:ction I 15 was not maintainable.

Respondent no. I claimed possession of impugned land pursuant to execution
E of a decree. Appellant obstructed delivery of possession on ground that the land
lawfully belonged to her. On this, respondent no. I filed a petition under Section
151 CPC before the executing court. The court recorded evidence but ultimately
-
dismissed the petition as not maintainable. It was of the view that the application
ought to have been filed under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC. Against this revision
petition of respondent no.I High Court was allowed with directions for removal of
F appellant from the impugned lands. Hence the present appeal.

Appellant contended that the application filed under section 151 CPC being
not maintainable nothing survived for further consideration.

Allowing the appeal, the Court
G
HELD I. Respondent no.I ought to have filed an application under Order
XXI, Ruic 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Order XXI, Rule 97 clearly provides
that where execution of decree is resisted or obstructed by any person, the decree
holder may make an application to the court complaining of such resistance or
obstruction, !"hereupon the court shall proceed to adjudicate upon the application
H 610
S. RAJESWARI v. S.N. KULASEKARAN 611

in accordance with the provisions contained in the Code. Rules 98 to I 00 are the A,
Rules which provide the manner in which such an application has to be dealt
with. Under Rule IOI, all questions including question relating to right, title and
interest of property arising between the parties to the proceeding and relevant to
the adjudication of the application, have to be determined by the court dealing
with the said application. Rule I03 provides that when an application is adjudicated B
upon under Rule 98 or Rule 100, the order made thereon shall have the same
force and be subject to the same conditions as to an appeal or otherwise as if it
were a decree. It thus follows that if an application is made under Order XXI,
Rule 97, which is adjudicated upon by the court, the adjudicatory order is treated
as a decree against which an appeal may be filed. In the instant case, therefore,
since the adjudicatory order passed by the executing court went against C
respondent no.I, he ought to have filed an appeal before the High Court.
1614-E-H; 615-AI
2.1. The application filed by respondent no.I was one under Section 151
CPC and not under Order XXI, Rule 97 CPC. But the executing court in
substance treated it as an application under Order XXI, Rule 97 because it D
proceeded to record evidence and thereupon adjudicated in the matter. Jn fact, the
decree holder was also examined before the executing court. His evidence was
also considered by the court in reaching the conclusion that the identity of the
plot in question had not been established thereby, disabling the bailiff from
executing the decree for possession of the land. 1615-B, CJ
E
2.2. If the said application under Section 151, CPC is treated as one under
Order XXI, Rule 97 CPC the order passed in that proceeding must be treated as
a decree against which only an appeal lay to the appellate court. Respondent no.I
did not appeal to the High Court and instead preferred a revision petition under
section ll5 CPC. 1615-E]
2.3. In view of the provision of Order XXI, Rule 103 CPC, no revision could
F
be entertained by the High Court against that order in view of the clear prohibition
contained in section 115(2) of the CPC, which in clear terms provides that the
High Court shall not under Section 115 vary or reverse any decree or order
against which an appeal lay either to the High Court or to any other Court
subordinate thereto.1615-FI G
2.4. The High Court appears to have interfered with the order of the
executing court because it was under the impression that a long drawn litigation,
perhaps engineered by the judgment-debtor, would result in great injustice, and
therefore, if some relief could be granted by cutting short the procedure of appeal,
etc., the power under Section 115 could be exercised to do justice between the H
612 SUPREME COLRT REPORTS J2006] 3 S.C.R.

A parties. The High Court could not have acted in a manner contrary to the express
provision of Section 115(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure. j615-G; 616-AI

2.5. It must, therefore, be held that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction
in entertaining a revision petition under Section 115, against an order passed in
B proceeding under Order XXI, Rule 97 CPC, even if the application filed under
Section 151 CPC is treated to be an application under Order XXI, Rule 97 CPC.
1616-BI

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 14171200 I.

C From the Judgment and Order dated I0.8.2000 of the High Court of
Madras in C.R.P. No. 140/2000.
WITH
Cont. Pet. (Civil) No. 35112002 in C.A. No. 1417/2001.

Ajit Kumar Sinha and Ms. S. Janani for the Appellants.
D A.TM. Rangaramanujam. C. Paramasivam. P. Ramesh. Rakesh K. Shanna,
Muthu Durai. G. Sivabalamurugan, Y. Arunagiri. L.K. Pandey and Ajit Kumar
Sinha for the Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
E B.P. SINGH, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against the
common judgment and order of the High Court of Judicature at Madras dated
August 10,2000 in Civil Revision Petition nos. 138-143 of2000. The appellant
before us is one of the persons who obtained by respondent no. 1 herein.
In view of the obstruction by the appellant herein. respondent no. I filed an
F application before the executing court under Section 151 of the Code of Civil
Procedure praying for certain reliefs. The executing court rejected the said
application holding it to be not maintainable. The order of the executing Court
dated 22.11.1999 was challenged before the High Court in revision petition
filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The said revision
G petition was allowed by the High Cuu11 by its impugned judgment and order.

We may notice only the facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal.
One Mr. Nagoor was the original owner of land measuring 19.57 acres in plot
Nos. 54 and 55 bearing survey No. I3 l/2A and I A2 in Villivakkan Village,
Chennai. The respondent nu. I herein purchased land measuring 6 cents from
H one Mr. Robe11 who in turn had acquired the land under a deed of settlement
S. RAJESWARI v. S.N. KULASEKARAN [B.P. SINGH, .I.] 613

dated 25.2.1967 from one Mr. John, who had purchased it from Mr. Nagoor A
on 26. 11.1960. The purchase by respondent no.1 was on August 6, 1969. 1t
appears that the said Mr. Nagoor sold lands out of the said plot to others
as well, one of them being Pakairaj to whom he sold 6 cents of land on
14.5.1981.

Respondent no. I filed suit O.S. No. 1311/81 before the court of District B
Munsif. Poonamallee for declaration of title and for recovery of possession
of 6 cents of land. He also prayed for permanent injunction. Packiraj was the
defendant in this suit. It appears that thereafter on 12.10.1985 Mr. Nagoor sold
6 cents to one Mr. Deva Anbu.

The respondent No. I sought amendment and claimed declaration of C
title of 10 cents of land i.e. 4425 sq.ft. and later Mr. Nagoor was also imp leaded
as a party defendant.

It is not disputed that on 29.12.1998 the suit filed by respondent no. 1
was decreed. A first appeal preferred by Mr. Pakiaraj was also dismissed. The
second appeal also came to be dismissed on 22.2.1990. D
The appellant before us had also purchased 2970 sq.ft. of land from
Deva An bu by a registered sale deed dated 26.3 .1990. Several other applications
were made by the decree holder for amendment of the decree incorporating
various other specifications. It is not necessary to refer to other proceedings
taken. Suffice it to say that by order dated 30th March, 1999 the Trial Court E
passed an order for delivery of possession of suit land to the respondent no.
I plaintiff.

The Bailiff along with police, Taluk Surveyor and the decree holder
came to execute the decree on 8.4.1999. He found that the property identified
by the decree holder was quite different from the land described in the decree F
and accordingly he made a report to the Court to the effect that since the
identity of the land which was subject matter of the decree was in doubt, the
warrant c.ould not be executed. The decree holder respondent no. I herein
also made a similar endorsement. The appellant herein submitted her written
objections claiming that the land, of which possession was sought to be G
given to the decree holder, was the land belonging to her which she had
validly acquired under a registered sale deed.

Respondent No. 1 decree holder filed a petition under Section 151, C.P.C
before the executing court on 23.4.1999 to remove the obstructor, namely the
appellant herein. Though an application was filed under section 151, C.P.C. H
614 SUPREME COl!RT REPORTS [20061 3 S.C.R.

A it appears that the court recorded evidence and ultimately came to the
conclusion that the application filed by the respondent no. I decree holder
unda Section 151, C.P.C. was not maintainable. According to executing court
the decree holder ought to have filed and application under Order XX!, Rule
97 C.P.C. whereafter the procedure prescribed by the following Rules had to
B be observed and the matter adjudicated. In view of its findings the executing
court on 22.11.1999 dismissed the petition filed under section 151 CPC

Respondent No. I decree holder preferred revision against the order of
the executing court dismissing his application under Section 151, C.P.C. The
High Court by its impugned order allowed the said revision petition and
C setting aside the order of the executing court directed removal of the obstructor,
namely the appellant herein. The said order is challenged before us.

We do not wish to go into the controversy as to whether the identity
-
of the plot of land, subject matter of the decree, was established. There is
considerable material on record that creates a lot of confusion about the
D identity of the plot of land in question said to have been purchased by
respondent no. I-decree holder. It appears that the lands when originally sold
were agricultural lands which had changed their character in due course on
account of urbanisation of the area in question. However, what cannot be
disputed is the fact that there was obstruction from the appellant herein who
obstructed delivery of possession of the land claimed by the decree holder
E on the ground that the land belonged to her of which she was the lawful
owner having purchased the same from the erstwhik owner by a registered
sale deed.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are satisfied that in a
F case of this nature, the respondent no.1 ought to have filed an application
under Order XX!, Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Order XXI, Rule 97
clearly provides that where execution of decree is resisted or obstructed by
any person, the decree holder may make an application to the court complaining
of such resistance or obstruction, whereupon the court shall proceed to
adjudicate upon the application in accordance with provisions contained in
G the Code. Rules 98 to I00 are the Rules which provide the manner in which
such an application has to be dealt with. Under Rule I0 L all questions
including question relating to right, title and interest of property arising
between the parties to the proceeding and relevant to the adjudication of the
application, have to be determined by the court dealing with the said
H application. Rule 103 provides that when an application is adjudicated upon
under Rule 98 or Rule I00, the order made thereon shall have the same force
S. RA.IESWARI v. S.N. KULASEKARAN [B.P. SJNGH,J.] 615
and be subject to same conditions as to an appeal or otherwise as if it were A
a decree. It thus follows that if an application is made under order XX!, Rule
97, which is adjudicated upon by the court, the adjudicatory order is treated
as a decree against which an appeal may be filed. In the instant case, therefore,
since the adjudicatory order passed by the executing court went against
respondent no. l, he ought to have filed an appeal before the High Court. B
We may, however, notice that the application filed by the respondent
no. I was one under Section 151, C.P.C. and not under Order XX!, Rule 97,
C.P.C. But we further notice that the executing court in substance treated it

- as an application under Order XXI, Rule 97 because it proceeded to record
evidence and thereupon adjudicated in the matter. In fact the decree holder
was also examined before the executing court. His evidence was also considered
by the court in reaching the conclusion that the identity of the plot in
C

question had not been established thereby, disabling the bailiff from executing
the decree for possession of the land.

Learned senior counsel for the appellant-obstructor submitted before us D
that the application filed under section 151, C.P.C. being not maintainable
nothing survived for further consideration. Having regard to the fact that the
executing court substantially followed the procedure laid down by Rules 98
to I 00 and thereafter passed an adjudicatory order, we may hold in favour of
the respondent no. I to the extent that the application though filed with the
label of section 151, C.P.C. was in fact treated as one under Order XX!, Rule E
97. This, however, does not resolve the controversy before us because even
if we treat the said application under section 151, C.P.C. as one under Order
XXI, Rule 97, C.P.C. the order passed in that proceeding must be treated as
a decree against· which only an appeal lay to the appellate court. The respondent
no. I did not appeal to the High Court and instead preferred a revision petition p
under section 115, C.P.C. We have no doubt that in view of the provisions
of Order XX!, Rule l 03, C.P.C. which provide for appeal against the order
passed by the executing court in such matters, no revision could be entertained
by the High Court against that order in view of the clear prohibition contained
in section 115(2) of the C.P.C. which in clear terms provides that the High
Court shall not under Section 115 vary or reverse any decree or order against G
which an appeal lay either to the High Court or to any other Court subordinate
thereto. The High Court appears to have interfered with the order of the
executing court because it was under the impression that a long drawn
litigation, perhaps engineered by the judgment-debtor would result in great

\
.. injustice, and therefore, if some relief could be granted by cutting short the H
616 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006) 3 S.C.R.

A procedure of appeal etc., the power under section 115 could be exercised to
do justice between the parties. In our view the High Court could not have
-
acted in a manner contrary to the express provision of section 115(2) of the
Code of Civil procedure. Since an appeal was provided under Order XXI, Rule
I 03 of the Code of Civil Procedure which treated the order passed by the
B executing Court as a decree subject to the same conditions as to appeal
against such decree, a revision petition under section 115, C.P.C. against such
an order is not maintainable. We must therefore, hold that the High Court
exceeded its jurisdiction in entertaining a revision petition under section 115,
C.P.C. against an order passed in proceeding under Order XXI, Rule 97, C.P.C.,
even if we treat the application filed under Section 151, C.P.C. to be an
C application under Order XX!, Rule 97, C.P.C.
......
The order of the High Court cannot be sustained and accordingly this
appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment and order is set aside.

Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.
D submitted that the respondent no. I was ill advised to prefer a revision petition
before the High Court instead of an appeal. He submitted that it is still open
to the respondent no. I to move the High Court by way of an appeal. We
express no opinion in the matter and we leave it to parties to seek such
remedy as may be available to them in accordance with law. This appeal is
accordingly allowed.
E
vs. Appeal allowed.

·-