Executing courts cannot compel decree-holders to testify or face cross-examination absent their evidence.

Respondent No. 1 sought execution of an arbitral award dated 30 August 2013.

The petitioner, claiming to be the purchaser and lawful owner of property targeted in execution, filed an objection under Order XXI Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), and adduced evidence.

He then sought to summon respondent No. 1’s officer for cross-examination, including on the borrower’s account and alleged repayment.

The Executing Court rejected that application.

The petitioner challenged the rejection under Article 227 of the Constitution.

The Court also recorded an impleading applicant’s claim to have purchased the property at a court auction, but did not determine that applicant’s rights.

Whether the Executing Court erred in refusing to summon respondent No. 1’s officer for cross-examination when respondent No. 1 had not adduced evidence.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to relief under Article 227 against the order rejecting his application.

Order XXI Rule 97 CPC provides the procedural basis for an objection to resistance or obstruction in execution, which the Executing Court must determine on its merits.

A party that does not intend to adduce evidence cannot be compelled to do so or to make itself available for cross-examination.

The Court also considered its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution; it identified no basis to interfere with the impugned order.

No precedent was cited.

The petitioner had adduced his evidence in support of his execution objection, but respondent No. 1 had not adduced evidence.

The Court held that, in those circumstances, respondent No. 1 could not be compelled to provide a witness for cross-examination.

The petitioner’s objection under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC therefore remained for the Executing Court to decide on the record and in accordance with law; the refusal to summon respondent No. 1’s officer disclosed no error warranting supervisory interference.

The impleading applicant’s claimed rights were left open for that applicant to pursue independently in the execution proceedings.

It directed the Executing Court to proceed with and decide the petitioner’s objection under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC expeditiously, on its merits and in accordance with law.

The Court clarified that its observations were confined to the impugned order and did not determine the merits of the objection or the impleading applicant’s rights.