Coercive dispossession is barred for one month to enable challenge to the alleged ex parte decree before the competent civil court.

The petitioners claimed settled possession of houses situated on land at Village Nagarnaar, District Bastar, relying on revenue records, property-tax receipts and other documents.

In Civil Suit No. 45-A/2005, a decree dated 31 January 2008 was passed in favour of Respondent No. 5 concerning Khasra No. 1473, pursuant to which Execution Case No. 04/2011 was initiated.

During execution proceedings, the Civil Court issued a notice dated 18 August 2026 to the Tahsildar under Section 384 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, and consequential notices were issued by the revenue authorities proposing the petitioners’ dispossession, with police assistance allegedly being provided.

The petitioners challenged these notices, contending that execution of a decree for possession over immovable property must follow Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and that they had not been given a reasonable opportunity to present their defence.

They also asserted that the decree was ex parte and that they lacked proper knowledge of the proceedings.

The State opposed the petition on the ground that the Tahsildar’s action was pursuant to the Civil Court’s orders and that the petitioners had an efficacious remedy before the competent Civil Court.

1. Whether the petitioners could challenge, in writ jurisdiction, the show-cause notice issued to the Tahsildar and the consequential notices proposing their dispossession pursuant to the execution proceedings.

2. Whether the petitioners were entitled to protection from coercive dispossession while obtaining the relevant records and approaching the competent Civil Court against the alleged ex parte decree and consequential execution proceedings.

3. Whether the petitioners should be granted liberty to avail the appropriate remedy before the competent Civil Court within a specified period.

The Court considered the principle that execution of a decree for possession of immovable property is governed by Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, as asserted by the petitioners.

The petitioners also challenged the invocation of Section 384 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in the execution-related proceedings; however, the Court did not finally determine the applicability or validity of that provision.

The Court applied the principle that where an efficacious remedy is available before the competent Civil Court, particularly in relation to an alleged ex parte decree and execution proceedings, the writ petition may be disposed of by granting liberty to pursue that remedy.

Interim protection may be granted for a limited period to enable the affected parties to approach the competent forum, without adjudicating the merits or title of the parties.

The Court noted that the petitioners’ principal grievance arose from an alleged ex parte decree and the consequential execution proceedings, matters for which an appropriate remedy lay before the competent Civil Court.

Since the petitioners claimed lack of proper knowledge of the decree and sought time to obtain the relevant records and formulate their legal challenge, the Court considered it appropriate not to examine the merits of the decree, the execution proceedings, or the legality of the notices in writ jurisdiction.

Balancing the proposed dispossession with the petitioners’ request to pursue their civil remedy, the Court granted them one month to approach the competent Civil Court and restrained the Tahsildar from taking coercive steps during that period.

The Court expressly clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits or on the parties’ rights and contentions.

Until expiry of that period, the Tahsildar was directed not to take coercive steps to dispossess the petitioners from the subject property.

The interim protection was to automatically lapse after one month, and no opinion was expressed on the merits of the dispute or the rights of the parties.

There was no order as to costs.