Third-party obstruction of decree execution is maintainable without dispossession but requires proof of independent title.

The appellants challenged an order dated 06.01.2026 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ghazipur, which rejected their application under Order 21 Rule 97 and 99 of the CPC as non-maintainable

The underlying dispute began with Original Suit (O.S.) No. 348 of 1988, where the respondent (Nizamuddin) successfully sued Shivanand Bharti and others for possession based on a sale deed

That decree was affirmed in appeal in 2019

During execution (Case No. 03 of 2020), the appellants—heirs of Paramhans Pandey and relatives of the judgment debtors—filed objections claiming independent ownership via a family partition

The executing court dismissed the objections solely because the appellants were not yet dispossessed, holding the application premature under Rule 99 and not maintainable under Rule 97

1. Whether an application under Order 21 Rule 97 and 99 CPC by a third party is maintainable only after actual dispossession.

2. Whether the appellants demonstrated a prima facie independent right, title, or interest in the disputed property to resist the execution of the decree.

The court applied the provisions of Order 21 Rules 35, 97, 99, 101, and 103 of the CPC, which constitute a "complete code" for resolving execution disputes

Relying on Periyammal v. V. Rajamani (2025) and Brahmdeo Chaudhary v. Rishikesh Prasad Jaiswal (1997), the court noted that a stranger to a decree can offer resistance before being dispossessed under Rule 97

It further cited Alka Shrirang Chavan v. Hemchandra Rajaram Bhonsale (2026) to establish that "any person" includes those not bound by the decree

Finally, it applied the guidelines from Rahul S. Shah v. Jinendra Kumar Gandhi (2021), which mandate that executing courts must refrain from entertaining frivolous or mala fide third-party claims intended to delay the fruits of a decree

The High Court observed that the executing court’s reasoning—that the application was non-maintainable because the appellants weren't yet dispossessed—was legally erroneous

Under the established precedent, Rule 97 allows a stranger to adjudicate their rights prior to actual eviction

The High Court proceeded to examine the merits of the appellants' claim to prevent a "retrial" in execution. It found that the appellants failed to provide documentary evidence of the alleged family partition or their father’s title

The court noted that since the appellants resided in the same house as the judgment debtors, it was "improbable" they were unaware of the 38-year-old litigation

The court concluded that the application was a collusive attempt with the judgment debtors to frustrate the decree, lacking any bona fide independent interest

On the second issue, the Court held that the appellants failed to prove any independent right, rendering their objection meritless

The High Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the rejection of the appellants' application, modifying the reasoning to focus on the lack of a prima facie case rather than maintainability