Successive execution objections by related parties indicate lack of bona fides and do not warrant stay of decree.

The respondent (landlord) obtained an eviction decree against a tenant in 2011 involving property identified by a plaint map.

Since 2012, the execution of this decree has been stalled by various objections.

Previously, a company (Atisha Constructions) owned by the petitioner’s relatives filed objections under Order 21 Rule 97 of the CPC, which were rejected and upheld by the Supreme Court.

The petitioner, claiming to be a bona fide purchaser of adjacent land (Survey No. 1126/10) via a 2012 sale deed, filed new objections under Order 21 Rule 97 in March 2026.

The petitioner sought a stay of the execution proceedings and a revenue demarcation to identify the suit land, arguing that the decree-holder's land is in Survey No. 1126/2, not his portion.

The executing court refused to stay the execution or order demarcation via orders dated 02.07.2026 and 13.07.2026.

1. Whether the executing court failed to exercise jurisdiction by refusing to stay execution proceedings pending the adjudication of objections under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC.

2. Whether a fresh revenue demarcation is required to identify the suit property despite the existence of a specific plaint map in the original decree.

3. Whether the petitioner's conduct and the timing of the application indicate a bona fide claim or a strategic attempt to obstruct the execution of a decree.

The court applied Order 21 Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) regarding resistance or obstruction to possession of immovable property.

The court relied on the principle of pendente lite purchase from Usha Sinha v. Dina Ram & Ors. (2008) 7 SCC 144, noting that such purchasers are generally bound by the litigation.

The court applied the doctrine from Challani Ginning and Pressing Factory v. Kamal (2026) SCC OnLine SC 718, which holds that an objector who waits until dispossession is imminent to file objections, despite long-pending execution proceedings, lacks bona fides and cannot stall recovery.

The court found that the suit property was clearly identified in the original plaint map by boundaries and dimensions, making revenue demarcation unnecessary for execution.

Regarding the stay, the court observed that the petitioner purchased the property in 2012 but only filed objections in 2026 after his relatives' legal challenges failed.

The court noted that members of the same extended family filed successive objections under different names (individual and corporate), which suggested a "deliberate attempt to stall" the 15-year-old execution.

Following the Challani Ginning precedent, the court determined that the petitioner’s strategic delay in filing objections until dispossession was threatened negated any prima facie case for a stay.

The court held that the petitioner lacked bona fides due to the unexplained delay and the history of related-party litigation; however, clarified that these observations are limited to the prayer for a stay and shall not prejudice the final adjudication of the pending application under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC on its merits.