Bank Deposits Keys, But Society’s Objection Delays Possession: Allahabad HC Gives Executing Court 3 Months To Decide It

Smt. Nirmala Devi obtained an eviction decree against Punjab National Bank and its officials on 27 August 2012.

After her death, the petitioner, claiming under a registered Will, instituted execution proceedings in 2025.

Meerut Sahkari Awas Samiti Limited (the Society), whose earlier application to be impleaded in the suit had been rejected, filed an objection under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC in the execution proceedings.

Pursuant to an order in the Bank’s civil revision, the Bank deposited the premises’ keys with the executing court on 1 April 2026. The executing court deferred the petitioner’s application for release of the keys and delivery of possession until determination of the Society’s objection.

The petitioner sought a time-bound direction for deciding the objection and then considering her application.

Article 227 of the Constitution confers supervisory jurisdiction, which may be used to secure the fair and timely progress of proceedings before subordinate courts without substituting the High Court’s assessment for theirs or deciding issues within their jurisdiction.

Order XXI CPC governs execution and requires objections to resistance or obstruction to possession to be determined under the prescribed procedure; questions of maintainability and the objector’s rights fall to be decided by the executing court.

The effect of an earlier order rejecting impleadment, including any application of res judicata or constructive res judicata, depends on the terms and issues of that order and the nature of the later claim.

Rahul S. Shah v. Jinendra Kumar Gandhi, (2021) 6 SCC 418, emphasises preventing avoidable delay in execution while deciding objections in accordance with the statutory scheme.

The decree had remained unenforced, the Bank had deposited the keys, and the petitioner’s possession application remained deferred because the Society’s objection was pending.

The Court considered that delay warranted supervisory intervention, but held that expedition could not displace the Society’s right to a fair hearing or bypass the CPC procedure.

It therefore left the objection—including its maintainability, the effect of the earlier impleadment order, and any res judicata questions—to the executing court, directing that court to decide the objection first and then determine the petitioner’s application in accordance with law.

Afterward, the executing court must consider the petitioner’s application for release of the keys and delivery of possession and take further steps in the execution proceedings expeditiously, avoiding unnecessary adjournments.

The High Court expressed no view on the objection’s merits or maintainability, the parties’ substantive rights, or the petitioner’s entitlement to possession; there was no order as to costs.