Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Kamal W/o Vishwanath Jadhav, filed a second appeal challenging the judgment and decree dated 11.09.2025 passed by the first appellate Court in R.C.A. No. 116/2025, which confirmed the judgment and order dated 9.5.2025 passed by the Executing Court in Special Darkhast No. 32/2017. The Executing Court had dismissed the appellant's objection petition at Exh. 210 and an interim application for framing issues at Exh. 233. The appellant claimed to be in possession of the property in question and asserted a proprietary right and share independent of the judgment debtor. The respondent, Challani Ginning and Pressing Factory, was the decree holder. The appellant argued that both courts below failed to appreciate the true scope of Rule 97 of Order 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), and that the executing court should have adjudicated her right, title and interest instead of summarily rejecting the objection. The appellant also contended that she was denied an opportunity to lead evidence. The High Court, after hearing the counsel for both parties, found that the executing court had recorded a finding that the objection was filed in collusion with the judgment debtor to frustrate and defeat the decree, and was frivolous and not bona fide. The court held that under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC, the executing court has the power to summarily reject an objection if it is prima facie frivolous and intended to delay execution. The court further held that the objector has no right to lead evidence in such circumstances, and the court can decide the objection based on oral arguments and documents on record. The High Court dismissed the second appeal, finding no substantial question of law involved.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Execution - Objection under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC - Summary Rejection - The executing court can summarily reject an objection petition if it is found to be frivolous, not bona fide, and filed in collusion with the judgment debtor to delay execution, without going into the merits of the objector's title. (Paras 1-4)
B) Civil Procedure - Execution - Right to Lead Evidence - The objector has no right to lead evidence if the objection is prima facie frivolous and the court finds it to be a delaying tactic. The court can decide the objection on the basis of oral arguments and documents on record. (Paras 2-4)
C) Civil Procedure - Execution - Possession - Independent Right - Mere possession of the property by the objector does not entitle her to resist execution unless she establishes a right independent of the judgment debtor. The executing court is not required to adjudicate title if the objection is collusive. (Paras 3-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the executing court and first appellate court erred in summarily rejecting the appellant's objection petition under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC without adjudicating her right, title and interest in the property and without allowing her to lead evidence.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the second appeal, holding that no substantial question of law arises. The executing court's order summarily rejecting the objection petition was upheld.
Law Points
- Order 21 Rule 97 CPC
- summary rejection of objection
- collusion with judgment debtor
- no right to lead evidence if objection is frivolous
- executing court's power to decide objections summarily
Case Details
Second Appeal No. 394 of 2025 with Civil Application No. 11376 of 2025
Mr. N.B. Khandare, Sr. Advocate I/b. Prashant Nikam, Advocate for appellant; Mr. P.F. Patni, Advocate for respondent
Kamal W/o Vishwanath Jadhav
Challani Ginning and Pressing Factory, a registered Partnership Firm, through its Partner
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Second appeal against judgment and decree of first appellate court confirming dismissal of objection petition in execution proceedings.
Remedy Sought
Appellant sought to set aside the judgment and decree of the first appellate court and the order of the executing court, and to have her objection petition adjudicated on merits with opportunity to lead evidence.
Filing Reason
Appellant claimed to be in possession of the property and asserted independent right, title and interest, and alleged that the executing court summarily rejected her objection without proper adjudication.
Previous Decisions
Executing Court dismissed objection petition at Exh. 210 and interim application at Exh. 233 vide common judgment and order dated 9.5.2025 in Special Darkhast No. 32/2017. First Appellate Court confirmed the same vide judgment and decree dated 11.09.2025 in R.C.A. No. 116/2025.
Issues
Whether the executing court and first appellate court erred in summarily rejecting the objection petition under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC without adjudicating the appellant's right, title and interest.
Whether the appellant was entitled to lead evidence to prove her right, title and interest before the executing court.
Whether the finding of collusion between the appellant and the judgment debtor was justified.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant argued that both courts below failed to appreciate the true intent and scope of Order 21 Rule 97 CPC, and that the executing court should have framed issues and allowed evidence to adjudicate her right, title and interest.
Appellant contended that she is in possession of the property and her right to remain in possession is independent of the decree, hence she cannot be dispossessed without due adjudication.
Respondent argued that the objection was frivolous and filed in collusion with the judgment debtor to delay execution, and the executing court rightly rejected it summarily.
Ratio Decidendi
Under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC, an executing court can summarily reject an objection petition if it is prima facie frivolous, not bona fide, and filed in collusion with the judgment debtor to delay execution. In such cases, the court is not required to adjudicate the objector's right, title and interest or allow evidence.
Judgment Excerpts
By the present second appeal, the appellant/original objector challenges the judgment and decree dated 11.09.2025 passed by the first appellate Court in R.C.A. No. 116/2025, confirming the judgment and order dated 9.5.2025 passed by the Executing Court in Special Darkhast No. 32/2017.
The learned counsel for the appellant submits that following substantial questions of law arise in the present second appeal.
Whether both the Courts below failed to appreciate the true intent, import and scope of Rule 97 of Order 21 of CPC, while rejecting Objection Petition/Application of the Appellant.
Procedural History
The respondent decree holder filed Special Darkhast No. 32/2017 for execution of a decree. The appellant filed objection petition at Exh. 210 and an interim application for framing issues at Exh. 233. The Executing Court dismissed both vide common judgment and order dated 9.5.2025. The appellant appealed to the first appellate court in R.C.A. No. 116/2025, which was dismissed on 11.09.2025. The appellant then filed the present second appeal before the High Court.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC): Order 21 Rule 97, Order 21 Rule 98, Order 21 Rule 99, Order 21 Rule 100, Order 21 Rule 101
