Order XXI Rules 98-101 CPC are inapplicable to property falling outside the scope of the execution decree.

The Respondent/Plaintiff filed a suit in 1986 for declaration, mandatory injunction, and possession regarding land in Village Gaurela, alleging encroachments by the Appellant/Defendant

The Trial Court partly decreed the suit in favor of the Plaintiff, a decision later modified by the First Appellate Court

After the decree attained finality following the dismissal of a Second Appeal and a Special Leave Petition in 2010, execution proceedings were initiated.

The Appellant (Judgment Debtor) filed an application under Order XXI Rules 97–101 of the CPC, alleging that the Respondent (Decree Holder) had obtained possession of land in excess of the decree

A Revenue Inspector's report dated 12.02.2011 indicated no such violation

The Executing Court rejected the Appellant’s objections on 01.10.2015, and the First Appellate Court affirmed this rejection on 28.07.2016

1. Whether an application under Order XXI Rule 99 of the CPC is maintainable at the instance of a Judgment Debtor regarding land allegedly falling outside the scope of the decree

2. Whether the Executing Court is required to frame issues and record evidence for an objection that pertains to land not covered by the execution proceedings

The Court applied the provisions of Order XXI Rules 97, 98, 99, 100, and 101 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

Rule 99 specifically provides a remedy for dispossession to persons "other than the judgment-debtor"

Rule 101 mandates that the Executing Court adjudicate all questions of right, title, or interest arising between parties only in respect of the property forming the subject matter of the execution

the court relied on the established principle that an Executing Court cannot travel beyond the decree and is bound to execute it as it stands

The Court observed that the Appellant's grievance pertained to land that did not form part of the property covered by the decree or the execution map

Under Order XXI Rule 99, an application complaining of dispossession is maintainable only by a person "other than the judgment-debtor"; since the Appellant was the Judgment Debtor and the land was outside the decree's scope, the provision was inapplicable

The Court determined that questions under Rule 101 can only be adjudicated if they relate to the property being executed

Because the alleged excess land was extraneous to the decree, the Executing Court had no jurisdiction to resolve the dispute within the execution proceedings

The Court further noted that a Revenue Inspector’s report had already found no encroachment on the Appellant's remaining land

Consequently, the procedural requirements of framing issues and recording evidence (as cited in Jini Dhanrajgir v. Shibu Mathew) were not triggered because the application itself was fundamentally misdirected and served only to reopen settled issues

The Court affirmed the orders of the lower courts, finding no perversity or substantial question of law. The Second Appeal was dismissed; however, the Court granted the Appellant liberty to pursue appropriate independent civil proceedings regarding the "excess land" claim