Adjudication under Order XXI Rule 98 results in an appealable decree, precluding Article 227 jurisdiction.

The petitioners invoked Article 227 of the Constitution challenging the order dated 22 November 2025 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division-XIV, Ranchi, in MCA No. 859 of 2024 arising from Execution Case No. 35 of 2023.

The court below dismissed the petitioners’ application under Order XXI Rules 97, 99 and 101 of the Code of Civil Procedure, holding that they had failed to produce convincing documents demonstrating any interest in the decretal property.

The executing court had framed, inter alia, whether it could go beyond the decree and whether the petitioners had been obstructed or resisted by the decree-holder despite possessing right, title or interest in the decretal property.

The opposite party raised a preliminary objection that the impugned order, being an adjudication under Order XXI Rule 98 CPC, had the force of a decree and was appealable; consequently, an application under Article 227 was not maintainable.

The court applied Order XXI Rules 97, 98, 99, 101 and 103 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Under these provisions, an executing court must adjudicate claims of resistance, obstruction, dispossession or alleged independent interest in the decretal property; an order passed upon such adjudication under Rule 98 or Rule 100 has the same force as a decree under Rule 103 and is appealable.

The court relied on Silverline Forum Pvt. Ltd. v. Rajiv Trust, 1998 SAR (Civil) 288, which holds that adjudication under Order XXI Rule 97(2) need not invariably involve a detailed inquiry or recording of evidence and may be based on admitted facts or the parties’ pleadings.

It also considered Sameer Singh v. Abdul Rab, (2015) 1 SCC 379, which distinguishes between an order adjudicating the parties’ rights and an order merely expressing the executing court’s inability or lack of jurisdiction to conduct an inquiry.

The settled principle that an executing court cannot go beyond the decree was also applied.

The High Court held that the executing court had not declined jurisdiction or declared itself incapable of conducting an inquiry.

Although it had answered that an executing court could not go beyond the decree, the decisive finding concerned the petitioners’ failure to produce convincing documents showing any right, title, interest or legally protected claim within the scope of Order XXI Rules 97, 99 and 101 CPC.

The absence of recorded evidence did not prevent the order from being treated as an adjudication, since detailed evidence is not an indispensable requirement under the principle stated in Silverline Forum.

Unlike the situation contemplated in Sameer Singh, where the executing court merely held that it was functus officio or lacked jurisdiction to inquire, the court below had considered and rejected the petitioners’ claim on merits.

Therefore, the impugned order attracted Order XXI Rule 103 CPC and was appealable as a decree.

An appeal, rather than a petition under Article 227, was therefore the appropriate remedy.

The Civil Miscellaneous Petition was dismissed as not maintainable.

Any interim relief granted earlier was vacated, and the Registry was directed to communicate the order to the concerned court.