Published on: 03 September 2023 at 11:40 IST
Court: Supreme Court
Citation: Ved Kumari V. MCD (2023)
Honourable Supreme Court of India has held that the Executing Court has the authority to adjudicate all the questions pertaining to right, title or interest in the property arising between the parties including the claim of a stranger who apprehends dispossession from the immovable property. It is held that Order XXI Rules 97 to 103 of the Code of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 provides the sole remedy both to the parties to a suit as well as to a stranger to the decree put to execution to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.
30. In view of the settled legal position, as noted (supra), it was the duty of the Executing Court to issue warrant of possession for effecting physical delivery of the suit land to the decree-holder in terms of suit schedule property and if any resistance is offered by any stranger to the decree, the same be adjudicated upon in accordance with Rules 97 to 101 of Order XXI of the CPC.
The Executing Court could not have dismissed the execution petition by treating the decree to be inexecutable merely on the basis that the decree-holder has lost possession to a third party/encroacher. If this is allowed to happen, every judgment-debtor who is in possession of the immoveable property till the decree is passed, shall hand over possession to a third party to defeat the decree-holder’s right and entitlement to enjoy the fruits of litigation and this may continue indefinitely and no decree for immovable property can be executed.
Drafted By Abhijit Mishra
