Smt. Nirmala Devi (Since Deceased) vs Punjab National Bank And 3 Others
- Court
- Allahabad High Court
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 13174 of 2026
Smt. Nirmala Devi (Since Deceased)
…..Petitioner(s)
Versus
Punjab National Bank and 3 others
…..Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Chandra Bir Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Krishna Mohan Asthana
AFR
Court No. - 35
HON'BLE DR. YOGENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.
Heard Sri Vikrant Rana, learned Senior Counsel appearing along
with Ms Nilakshi Tripathi, for the petitioner and Sri Krishna Mohan
Asthana, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3,
namely, Punjab National Bank and its officials. The record of the
petition, including the relevant orders passed in the execution
proceedings, has been perused.
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3
submits that the Bank has no objection to the relief sought in the present
petition, in view of the fact that the keys of the premises have already
been deposited before the executing court on 01.04.2026 in compliance
with the order dated 11.03.2026 passed by this Court in Civil Revision
No. 614 of 2012.
2
A227 No. - 13174 of 2026
3. The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India
seeks a direction to the Additional District Judge, Court No.18, Meerut,
for expeditious disposal of the objection filed by respondent No.4,
Meerut Sahkari Awas Samiti Limited, under Order XXI Rule 97 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the “CPC”),
registered as Miscellaneous Case No.712 of 2025, and for consequential
consideration of the petitioner’s application seeking release of the keys
and delivery of possession in Execution Case No.7 of 2025, arising out
of SCC Suit No.52 of 2010. The relief sought is procedural in nature and
does not require this Court to determine the maintainability or merits of
the pending objection or the substantive rights asserted by respondent
No. 4.
4. Having regard to the limited nature of the relief sought, the
statement of no objection made on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 3, and
the fact that the directions contemplated herein concern the expeditious
progress of proceedings pending before the executing court without
determining the rights of respondent No. 4, this Court does not consider
it necessary to issue formal notice to respondent No. 4 for the present
purpose. Notice to respondent No. 4 is, accordingly, dispensed with. It is
clarified that this order shall not prejudice the right of respondent No. 4
to contest the pending proceedings in accordance with law, and no
opinion is expressed herein on the maintainability or merits of its
objection.
5. The supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India has been invoked by the petitioner seeking a
direction to the Additional District Judge, Court No.18, Meerut, to
decide the objection filed by respondent No. 4 under Order XXI Rule 97
CPC, registered as Miscellaneous Case No.712 of 2025, and thereafter to
consider the petitioner’s application for release of the keys and delivery
of possession in Execution Case No.7 of 2025, arising out of SCC Suit
No. 52 of 2010, within a reasonable and time-bound period.
3
A227 No. - 13174 of 2026
6. The original plaintiff, Smt. Nirmala Devi, instituted SCC Suit No.
52 of 2010 against Punjab National Bank and its officials in respect of
premises bearing No. A-38, Saket, Meerut, seeking eviction and
recovery of arrears of rent. The suit was decreed on 27.08.2012,
directing the defendants to hand over possession of the premises to the
plaintiff. The decree was challenged by the Bank in Civil Revision No.
614 of 2012 before this Court.
7. During the pendency of the suit, Meerut Sahkari Awas Samiti
Limited moved an application under Order I Rule 10 read with Section
151 CPC seeking its impleadment in the proceedings. The said
application was rejected by the trial court on 25.01.2012. The
significance and legal effect of that order, particularly in relation to the
objection subsequently filed by the Society in the execution proceedings,
are matters which may require consideration by the executing court in
accordance with law.
8. It is the petitioner’s case that Smt. Nirmala Devi executed a
registered Will dated 20.11.2021 in her favour and that, upon the death
of Smt. Nirmala Devi on 03.02.2024, the petitioner became entitled to
pursue the proceedings and seek enforcement of the decree. The
petitioner instituted Execution Case No.7 of 2025 on 05.08.2025. In the
said execution proceedings, respondent No. 4 filed an objection under
Order XXI Rule 97 CPC, which was registered as Miscellaneous Case
No. 712 of 2025.
9. During the pendency of Civil Revision No. 614 of 2012, this
Court passed an order dated 11.03.2026 noting that the Bank had vacated
the premises on 14.07.2025 and had paid the arrears of rent and rent up
to the date of vacating. The order further recorded that the keys had not
been handed over because of the dispute between the landlord and the
Society. In those circumstances, the Bank was directed to deposit the
keys before the executing court within three weeks. It was also provided
that, upon compliance with the direction, the Bank would have no
further liability in that regard.
4
A227 No. - 13174 of 2026
10. In compliance with the aforesaid order, the Bank deposited the
keys before the executing court on 01.04.2026. The petitioner thereafter
sought release of the keys and delivery of possession of the premises. By
order dated 30.05.2026, the executing court deferred consideration of the
petitioner’s application until the objection filed by respondent No. 4
under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC was decided. While passing the order, the
executing court took note of the rejection of the Society’s earlier
impleadment application and made certain preliminary observations
concerning the possible applicability of the principles of res judicata and
constructive res judicata.
11. Respondent No. 4 thereafter instituted Civil Miscellaneous
(Transfer Application) No.292 of 2026, which was rejected by the
District Judge, Meerut, by order dated 29.07.2026. The District Judge
recorded that the executing court had clarified that the observations
made in its order dated 30.05.2026 were preliminary in nature and that
the objection filed by the Society would be decided after affording the
parties an opportunity of hearing. The proceedings, therefore, continued
before the executing court.
12. Respondent No. 4 challenged the order dated 29.07.2026 before
this Court. The said petition was disposed of as withdrawn on
22.09.2026, with liberty to respondent No. 4 to avail itself of the
appropriate statutory remedy. The merits of the dispute concerning the
transfer proceedings, as also the merits of the objection filed under Order
XXI Rule 97 CPC, were not adjudicated in those proceedings. The
petitioner’s grievance in the present petition is that, notwithstanding the
decree, the deposit of the keys and the pendency of the execution
proceedings, possession has not yet been delivered and the application
seeking release of the keys and delivery of possession remains
unconsidered pending adjudication of the Society’s objection.
13. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the decree for
eviction was passed as far back as 27.08.2012 and that the Bank has
already vacated the premises and deposited the keys before the executing
5
A227 No. - 13174 of 2026
court on 01.04.2026. Nevertheless, the petitioner has not been able to
obtain possession of the premises, as the application seeking release of
the keys and delivery of possession has been deferred on account of the
objection filed by respondent No. 4 under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC.
14. It is further submitted that the Society’s application for
impleadment in the original suit had already been rejected on 25.01.2012
and that the effect of the said order, including its bearing on the
subsequent objection filed in the execution proceedings, requires
consideration by the executing court. The petitioner contends that the
continued pendency of the objection is delaying the enforcement of the
decree and that the executing court ought to decide the objection within
a reasonable period and thereafter proceed to consider the petitioner’s
application for release of the keys and delivery of possession in
accordance with law.
15. Learned counsel for the petitioner accordingly seeks a time-bound
direction for disposal of the objection filed by respondent No. 4 and for
consequential consideration of the petitioner’s application in the
execution proceedings. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of
respondent Nos. 1 to 3, as noticed above, has stated that the Bank has no
objection to the relief sought, since the keys have already been deposited
before the executing court.
16. The question which arises for consideration is whether, in the
circumstances of the present case, a direction ought to be issued to the
executing court for expeditious disposal of the objection filed by
respondent No. 4 under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC and for subsequent
consideration of the petitioner’s application seeking release of the keys
and delivery of possession. The question does not require this Court to
adjudicate the objection itself or to determine the competing rights
asserted by the parties. The scope of consideration is confined to whether
the progress of the execution proceedings warrants a time-bound
direction in exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
6
A227 No. - 13174 of 2026
17. The jurisdiction conferred upon this Court under Article 227 is
supervisory in nature. Its exercise is intended to ensure that subordinate
courts and tribunals act within the bounds of their authority and that
proceedings before them are conducted in accordance with law. While
this jurisdiction is not intended to substitute the assessment of the court
concerned or to interfere with the manner in which a judicial discretion
is exercised merely because another course may be possible, it may
appropriately be exercised where intervention is necessary to prevent
undue delay and to secure the effective progress of proceedings pending
before the subordinate court.
18. The provisions of Order XXI CPC govern the execution of
decrees and prescribe the procedure to be followed in cases involving
resistance to or obstruction in the delivery of possession. An objection
under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC has to be considered in the context of the
pleadings raised, the nature of the claim advanced, the material placed
before the executing court and the applicable statutory provisions and
legal principles. The determination of the objection, including the
questions concerning its maintainability and the rights asserted by the
objector, falls within the domain of the executing court. This Court, in
the present proceedings, is not called upon to express any concluded
opinion on those matters.
19. The rejection of the Society’s application for impleadment by
order dated 25.01.2012 is a relevant circumstance in the procedural
history of the dispute. However, the legal effect of that order upon the
objection subsequently filed under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC would
depend upon the terms of the earlier order, the nature and grounds of the
application then considered, the questions which were or were not
adjudicated, and the nature of the claim now raised in the execution
proceedings. The applicability of res judicata or constructive res judicata
cannot be determined merely by reference to the fact that the earlier
impleadment application was rejected. The executing court is required to
examine the issue in the light of the relevant record and the applicable
principles of law. The preliminary observations made in the order dated
7
A227 No. - 13174 of 2026
30.05.2026 do not dispense with the need for such consideration and
adjudication.
20. The enforcement of a decree is an integral part of the
administration of justice. A decree-holder is entitled to seek execution of
a decree in accordance with law, while a person raising an objection to
delivery of possession is entitled to have the objection considered in the
manner prescribed by the CPC. Both aspects must be kept in view. The
need to afford a fair opportunity to an objector does not justify avoidable
or indefinite delay in execution proceedings; equally, the objective of
expeditious execution cannot be used to bypass the procedure prescribed
for adjudicating an objection. The appropriate course is to ensure that the
objection is decided fairly and expeditiously, followed by consideration
of the consequential application in accordance with law.
21. The need for expeditious enforcement of decrees has also been
emphasised by the Supreme Court in Rahul S. Shah v. Jinendra
1
Kumar Gandhi . The judgment underscores the importance of ensuring
that avoidable procedural delays do not deprive a successful litigant of
the fruits of a decree. It also stresses the responsibility of executing
courts to deal with objections and resistance in accordance with the
statutory scheme and to prevent execution proceedings from being
unnecessarily prolonged. The principles laid down therein require the
executing court to balance the need for fair adjudication of objections
with the equally important obligation to ensure effective and timely
enforcement of decrees.
22. In the present case, the decree for eviction was passed on
27.08.2012. The execution proceedings were instituted on 05.08.2025,
and the Bank has deposited the keys before the executing court on
01.04.2026 pursuant to the order passed by this Court in Civil Revision
No. 614 of 2012. The petitioner’s application seeking release of the keys
and delivery of possession has, however, not been considered on its
merits because the objection filed by respondent No. 4 remains pending.
1 (2021) 6 SCC 418
8
A227 No. - 13174 of 2026
The order dated 11.03.2026 passed in the civil revision facilitated the
deposit of the keys before the executing court and addressed the Bank’s
position upon compliance with the direction. It did not determine the
petitioner’s entitlement to obtain possession as against the claim asserted
by respondent No. 4. That question remains subject to the proceedings
pending before the executing court.
23. In these circumstances, the appropriate course is to direct the
executing court to adjudicate the objection filed by respondent No. 4
under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC after affording the parties an adequate
opportunity of hearing and in accordance with law. While doing so, the
executing court shall consider the relevant pleadings and material on
record, including the earlier order dated 25.01.2012 rejecting the
Society’s application for impleadment, and determine such questions of
maintainability, res judicata or constructive res judicata as may arise for
its consideration. Upon disposal of the objection, the executing court
shall proceed to consider and decide the petitioner’s application seeking
release of the keys and delivery of possession, in the light of the decision
on the objection and the applicable law.
24. Having regard to the date of the decree, the stage reached in the
execution proceedings, the deposit of the keys before the executing court
and the fact that the petitioner’s application remains pending
consequentially to the objection filed by respondent No. 4, this Court is
of the view that the ends of justice would be served by directing
expeditious disposal of the pending objection within a specified period.
Such a direction would not curtail the opportunity available to
respondent No. 4 to contest the proceedings, nor would it predetermine
the outcome of the objection. It would merely ensure that the pending
issues are adjudicated within a reasonable time and that the execution
proceedings are thereafter taken forward in accordance with law.
25. The supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India may be exercised to ensure that execution
proceedings do not remain pending for an unduly prolonged period and
9
A227 No. - 13174 of 2026
that the rights of the decree-holder are not rendered illusory by avoidable
delay. Where the circumstances warrant such intervention, appropriate
time-bound directions may be issued to secure the expeditious progress
of the proceedings, without interfering with the adjudication of disputed
questions falling within the jurisdiction of the executing court.
26. Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to
the Additional District Judge, Court No.18, Meerut, to decide the
objection filed by respondent No. 4, Meerut Sahkari Awas Samiti
Limited, under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC, registered as Miscellaneous
Case No.712 of 2025, preferably within a period of three months from
the date a certified copy of this order is produced before the executing
court. The executing court shall afford the parties an adequate
opportunity of hearing and shall decide the objection in accordance with
law. The parties shall extend their cooperation for expeditious disposal
of the proceedings.
27. Upon disposal of the aforesaid objection, the executing court shall
proceed to consider and decide the petitioner’s application seeking
release of the keys and delivery of possession and take further
appropriate steps in Execution Case No. 7 of 2025, in accordance with
law and as expeditiously as possible. Unnecessary adjournments shall be
avoided, subject to the requirements of a fair opportunity of hearing and
the circumstances of the case.
28. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on
the maintainability or merits of the objection filed by respondent No. 4,
the legal effect of the order dated 25.01.2012 rejecting its application for
impleadment, the applicability of the principles of res judicata or
constructive res judicata, or the substantive rights asserted by respondent
No. 4 or the petitioner’s entitlement to delivery of possession. All such
questions shall be considered independently by the executing court on
the basis of the pleadings, material on record and applicable law. The
statement of no objection made on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 3 is
confined to the relief sought in the present petition, namely, the issuance
10
A227 No. - 13174 of 2026
of appropriate directions for expeditious disposal of the pending
proceedings. The same shall not be construed as an expression of
opinion by the Bank on the merits or maintainability of the objection
filed by respondent No. 4 under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC, or on the
competing claims to possession.
29. The petition stands disposed of in the above terms. There shall be
no order as to costs.
(Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava,J.)
October 28, 2026
RKK/-
Digitally signed by :-
RAJ KUMAR KANNAUJIA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad