Kapoor Chand Th Lrs vs Jagdish And Ors

CR-2360-2023 (O&M) -:1:-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CR-2360-2023 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 13.11.2026
Kapoor Chand (Deceased) through his LRs
… Petitioners
Versus
Jagdish and Others
... Respondents
-.-
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL
Present:- Mr. Shiv Kumar, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Suhail Khan, Advocate assited by
Mr. Purushendra Bhardwaj, Advocate and
Mr. Vishal Raj, Advocate
for respondent Nos. 10 to 16.
-.-
VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J . (Oral)
1. The present revision petition has been preferred under Article
227 of the Constitution of India, invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of
this Court, seeking to assail the order dated 19.09.2022, passed by the
Executing Court, whereby issues were framed in the execution
proceedings.
2. The predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner obtained a decree
for redemption of mortgage on 10.08.1970, which attained finality upon
dismissal of the successive appeals and SLP, followed by a final decree
dated 24.01.1983. The execution proceedings were subsequently
interrupted by civil litigation instituted by the predecessor-in-interest of
respondent Nos. 10 to 16. Eventually, the petitioner’s RSA was allowed on
GAURAV SOROT
2026.11.13 14:37
I attest to the accuracy and integrity
of this document

CR-2360-2023 (O&M) -:2:-
13.05.2019, and the SLP thereagainst was dismissed on 22.02.2021. Upon
revival of execution, possession was delivered to the petitioner on
24.12.2021. Thereafter, respondent Nos. 10 to 16 filed third-party
objections alongwith application under Order XXI Rule 26 CPC.
Following appointment of a Local Commissioner, who reported
discrepancies in the site dimensions, the Executing Court framed issues
vide the impugned order, giving rise to the present revision petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the
impugned order is legally unsustainable, as the execution proceedings
stood satisfied upon delivery of possession of the decretal property to the
decree-holder. It is further argued that the third-party objections are not
maintainable and have been instituted with the oblique motive of
frustrating and delaying the execution of a decree passed nearly four
decades ago. Learned counsel submits that the objectors neither offered
any resistance nor raised any objection at the time of execution of the
warrants of possession; that their objections are hopelessly time-barred;
and that the civil suit instituted by them has already been dismissed.
Accordingly, interference with the impugned order is sought.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that
the impugned order suffers from no illegality or material infirmity. It is
contended that the third-party objections are maintainable under Order
XXI Rule 99 CPC, as the answering respondents claim to have been
dispossessed from the property which was in their possession. Learned
counsel further submits that the cause of action arose only upon actual
delivery of possession to the decree-holder and, therefore, the dismissal of
GAURAV SOROT
2026.11.13 14:37
I attest to the accuracy and integrity
of this document

CR-2360-2023 (O&M) -:3:-
the earlier civil suit on technical grounds does not operate as a bar to
adjudication of the objections, nor are the same barred by limitation.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and, with their
able assistance, having meticulously scrutinised the paper-book, this Court
finds that the controversy is squarely governed by the provisions of Order
XXI Rules 99 to 101 CPC, which are reproduced hereinbelow for ready
reference:-
ORDER XXI – Execution of Decrees and Orders
Rule 99. Dispossession by decree-holder or purchaser. —
(1) Where any person other than the judgment-debtor is dispossessed
of immovable property by the holder of a decree for the
possession of such property or, where such property has been sold
in execution of a decree, by the purchaser thereof, he may make an
application to the Court complaining of such dispossession.
(2) Where any such application is made, the Court shall proceed to
adjudicate upon the application in accordance with the provisions
herein contained.”
Rule 100. Order to be passed upon application complaining of
dispossession.—
“Upon the determination of the questions referred to in rule 101,
the Court shall, in accordance with such determination,—
(a) make an order allowing the application and directing that the
applicant be put into the possession of the property or dismissing
the application; or
(b) pass such other order as, in the circumstances of the case, it may
deem fit.”
Rule 101. Question to be determined.—
“All questions (including questions relating to right, title or
interest in the property) arising between the parties to a proceeding
GAURAV SOROT
2026.11.13 14:37
I attest to the accuracy and integrity
of this document

CR-2360-2023 (O&M) -:4:-
on an application under rule 97 or rule 99 or their representatives,
and relevant to the adjudication of the application, shall be
determined by the Court dealing with the application and not by a
separate suit and for this purpose, the Court shall, notwithstanding
anything to the contrary contained in any other law for the time
being in force, be deemed to have jurisdiction to decide such
questions.”
5.1. Since the respondents claim to have been dispossessed from
the property in execution of the decree, their third-party objections are
maintainable under Order XXI Rule 99 CPC. Further, in terms of Order
XXI Rule 101 CPC, all questions relating to right, title or interest in the
disputed property, arising between the parties to such proceedings and
relevant to the adjudication of the objections, are required to be
determined by the Executing Court itself and not by way of a separate suit.
Consequently, the Executing Court has committed no illegality or
jurisdictional infirmity in framing issues for adjudication of the questions
arising from the objections and the consequential reply filed by the
petitioners.
5.2. As regards the objection founded on limitation, the cause of
action for invoking the remedy under Order XXI Rule 99 CPC arose upon
the alleged dispossession of the respondents in execution of the decree.
Accordingly, the objections cannot be held to be time-barred merely on the
ground that the decree had been passed several decades earlier.
5.3. The contention that the objections are not maintainable in
view of the dismissal of the earlier civil suit instituted by the predecessor-
in-interest of the respondents is equally misconceived. The said suit was
dismissed by this Court on the technical ground that an independent civil
GAURAV SOROT
2026.11.13 14:37
I attest to the accuracy and integrity
of this document

CR-2360-2023 (O&M) -:5:-
suit was not maintainable and that the questions concerning the
respondents’ entitlement to possession were required to be adjudicated by
the Executing Court in accordance with the provisions of Order XXI CPC.
Thus, the dismissal of the earlier suit does not preclude adjudication of the
objections in the execution proceedings; rather, it reinforces the
requirement that such questions be determined by the Executing Court in
the manner prescribed by law.
5.4. In these circumstances, the Executing Court has committed no
illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in framing issues on
the basis of the third-party objections and the reply thereto. The
adjudication of such objections is within the statutory domain of the
Executing Court, and an order passed thereon under Order XXI Rule 100
CPC would have the force and effect of a decree, in terms of Order XXI
Rule 103 CPC. Consequently, finding no ground warranting interference
in exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227
of the Constitution of India, the present revision petition, being devoid of
merit, is dismissed .
6. It is clarified that the observations made hereinabove are
confined strictly to the adjudication of the controversy arising in the
present proceedings and shall not be construed as an expression of opinion
on the merits of the underlying dispute. Nothing stated herein shall
prejudice or influence the rights, claims or contentions of either party in
any other proceedings, nor shall these observations be treated as a
determination of any substantive question of fact or law arising therein.
GAURAV SOROT
2026.11.13 14:37
I attest to the accuracy and integrity
of this document

CR-2360-2023 (O&M) -:6:-
7. In view of the final disposal of the principal matter, all
pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of
accordingly. No further orders are warranted.
( VIRINDER AGGARWAL )
13.11.2026 JUDGE
Gaurav Sorot
Whether reasoned / speaking? Yes / No
Whether reportable? Yes / No
GAURAV SOROT
2026.11.13 14:38
I attest to the accuracy and integrity
of this document