An Order XXI objector is not entitled to further opportunity without diligence in prosecuting the claim.

Shobha, the judgment-debtor, had agreed to sell two parcels of land to the respondents.

After the suit for specific performance was fully decreed in appeal, the respondents initiated execution proceedings.

Padmavati filed an objection under Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, claiming a share in the property as joint-family property.

Following an earlier order of the High Court setting aside the dismissal of her application and directing its reconsideration on the merits, the Executing Court dismissed it for non-prosecution on 9 February 2026.

Padmavati challenged that dismissal under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

The respondents relied on the judgment in a partition suit, which had found the property to be the judgment-debtor’s self-acquired property; that finding had not been challenged by the defendants in that suit.

Whether the Executing Court’s dismissal of Padmavati’s objection for non-prosecution warranted interference under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

Whether Padmavati had established sufficient diligence or other grounds to merit a further opportunity to prosecute her objection.

The objection was brought under Order XXI Rules 97, 99, 100 and 101, read with Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and the challenge invoked Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

The Court applied the principle that a party seeking a hearing in execution proceedings must demonstrate diligence, urgency, and a genuine interest in the right asserted; a further opportunity is not warranted merely as a matter of right where the party has failed to prosecute the matter.

The Court cited no precedent.

The High Court had previously granted Padmavati an opportunity to have her application reconsidered and expressly directed her to cooperate with the proceedings.

After adjournments on 5 and 6 February 2026, her counsel stated on 9 February that she was absent and asked the Executing Court to note the absence and proceed; the Executing Court accordingly dismissed the application for non-prosecution.

The Court found no diligence or urgency in Padmavati’s conduct, noting both the delay in obtaining the certified copy and filing the writ petition, and the progress of execution in the interim.

It also noted that the partition-suit judgment had found the property to be the judgment-debtor’s self-acquired property and that the defendants had not challenged that finding.

The writ petition was dismissed.