Executing Court must determine objector's locus and expedite proceedings before staying execution of a decade-old decree.

The petitioners obtained an ex-parte decree on 29.03.2013 in a civil suit regarding property possession.

The defendants’ appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution in 2019.

In 2024, the petitioners filed for execution (Civil Execution Case No. 04/2024), and the Executing Court subsequently ordered the demolition of illegal structures and delivery of vacant possession.

On 18.02.2026, the Executing Court stayed the proceedings based on an application filed under Order XXI Rule 99 of the CPC by Respondent No. 6 (M/s Dharamshala Mandir Samiti Jaspur), who was not a party to the original suit.

The petitioners challenged this stay order, contending that Respondent No. 6 is a stranger to the proceedings and lacks locus standi.

1. Whether the Executing Court committed a manifest illegality by staying execution proceedings on the application of a third party (Respondent No. 6) without first determining their locus standi.

2. Whether the execution of a decree dated 2013 should be expedited given the prolonged delay in its satisfaction.

The Court applied the procedural provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), specifically Order XXI Rule 99, which allows a person dispossessed of immovable property by a decree-holder to complain to the Court, and Order XXI Rule 32 & 35 regarding the execution of decrees for injunction and possession.

The Court also referenced Section 47 of the CPC, which mandates that all questions arising between parties to the suit relating to the execution, discharge, or satisfaction of the decree shall be determined by the Executing Court.

The Court emphasized the judicial mandate to expedite execution proceedings to ensure the fruits of a decree are not denied by unnecessary delays.

The Court observed that although an ex-parte decree was passed in 2013, it remained unexecuted for nearly 13 years, which is contrary to the mandate of law.

In reviewing the impugned stay order, the Court found that the Executing Court entertained the application of Respondent No. 6 under Order XXI Rule 99 without recording any finding on whether the respondent had the legal standing (locus) to intervene, especially since they were neither a party to the suit nor a judgment debtor.

Intellectual priority was given to the fact that the actual judgment debtor had already filed objections under Section 47 of the CPC, which were pending.

The Court determined that a stay granted without examining the applicant’s interest in the land or providing the decree-holders an opportunity to be heard was unsustainable.

The matter was remanded to the Executing Court with directions to: (i) decide the application of Respondent No. 6 under Order XXI Rule 99 only after specifically examining their locus standi and hearing the petitioners; and (ii) expedite and conclude the execution proceedings within a period of two months from the date of the order.