Executing courts must adjudicate third-party title claims under Order XXI Rules 97–101.

The petitioner claimed through his father, Shafique Khan, who had purchased part of the disputed house by registered sale deed dated 7 November 1960.

In an earlier partition proceeding, the High Court had observed that Shafique was not a party and that the sale deed’s validity could not be considered; the decree would not bind him.

In execution of a later partition decree concerning the same houses, the petitioner applied under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC, asserting title and possession and seeking protection from execution.

The executing court rejected the application on the grounds that he should bring an independent suit and that the sale deed did not identify the relevant part of the house; it also dismissed his review application.

The petitioner challenged both orders under Article 226.

1. Whether a stranger to the decree claiming an independent right, title, or interest in property under execution may seek adjudication under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC, or must bring a separate suit.

2. Whether the High Court should exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 despite the availability of an appeal against an order finally deciding an application under Order XXI Rules 97–101 CPC.

Order XXI Rule 97 CPC permits adjudication where resistance or obstruction is offered to execution of a decree for possession; Rules 99 and 101 provide for adjudication of claims by persons dispossessed or resisting execution, including questions of right, title, or interest, and bar a separate suit on questions relevant to that adjudication.

An order determining such an application is treated as a decree and is appealable under Order XXI Rule 103 CPC.

The Court also relied on *Asgar v. Mohan Varma*, (2020) 16 SCC 230, and *Periyammal v. V. Rajamani*, (2025) 9 SCC 568.

Although an alternative remedy ordinarily informs the exercise of writ jurisdiction, it is not an absolute bar under Article 226; *State of U.P. v. Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd.*, (1977) 2 SCC 724, and *Radha Krishan Industries v. State of H.P.*, (2021) 6 SCC 771, were relied upon in that regard.

The executing court had declined to adjudicate the petitioner’s asserted title and possession, instead directing him to bring a separate suit.

The Court held that this approach was inconsistent with Order XXI Rules 97–101, which provide a mechanism for the executing court to decide relevant claims to the property and preclude a separate suit on those matters.

The earlier High Court judgment had expressly left open the validity of Shafique’s sale deed and held that the earlier decree would not bind him; because the later decree concerned the same property, the petitioner’s claim required examination, including identification of the portion covered by the sale deed.

Although an appeal was ordinarily available, the executing court’s refusal to exercise its jurisdiction and the petition’s pendency since 2015 justified writ intervention to correct the jurisdictional error and avoid further procedural prejudice.

It directed the executing court to reconsider the application, enquire into the petitioner’s claim, and issue a reasoned order under Order XXI Rules 97–103 CPC, preferably within six months of receiving a certified copy of the order.

The Court expressed no view on the merits of the petitioner’s claim; the writ petition was disposed of.