High Court of Karnataka Allows Writ Petition Against Dismissal of Obstruction Application in Execution Proceedings — Impugned Order Quashed. Court Held That Executing Court Must Consider Objections of Third Party Obstructor on Merits Under Order XXI Rules 97, 98, and 101 CPC.

High Court: Karnataka High Court Bench: DHARWAD In Favour of Accused

Admin

2026-05-18 14:57:29

Font size:

Case Note & Summary

The petitioner, Rajesh Enterprises, a partnership firm represented by its partner Naresh Godar Shah, filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench. The petitioner challenged the order dated 03.02.2024 passed by the Prl. Sr. Civil Judge and JMFC, Hubballi, in Execution Petition No. 228/2023. By the impugned order, the Executing Court dismissed the application filed by the petitioner as a third party obstructor under Order XXI Rules 97, 98, and 101 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). The petitioner sought a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned order. The respondents in the writ petition were the decree holders and other parties in the execution proceedings. The petitioner contended that the Executing Court had dismissed the application without conducting any inquiry and without considering the objections on merits. The High Court, after hearing the arguments, found that the impugned order was cryptic and did not assign any reasons for dismissal. The court held that under Order XXI Rules 97, 98, and 101 CPC, the Executing Court is required to conduct an inquiry and adjudicate upon the objections raised by a third party obstructor. The court emphasized that the Executing Court cannot dismiss such an application summarily without proper consideration. Consequently, the High Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the impugned order, and remitted the matter back to the Executing Court for fresh consideration in accordance with law. The court directed the Executing Court to consider the application on merits and pass appropriate orders after giving an opportunity of hearing to all parties.

Headnote

A) Civil Procedure Code - Execution Proceedings - Third Party Obstructor - Order XXI Rules 97, 98, 101 CPC - The Executing Court dismissed the application of the petitioner, a third party obstructor, without conducting any inquiry or considering the objections on merits. The High Court held that the Executing Court must consider the objections of a third party obstructor on merits and cannot dismiss the application summarily. The impugned order was quashed and the matter remitted back for fresh consideration. (Paras 1-10)

B) Civil Procedure Code - Execution Proceedings - Summary Dismissal - Inquiry - The High Court observed that the Executing Court's order was cryptic and did not assign any reasons for dismissing the application. The court emphasized that under Order XXI Rules 97, 98, and 101, the Executing Court is required to conduct an inquiry and adjudicate upon the objections raised by a third party obstructor. The impugned order was set aside. (Paras 5-10)

Issue of Consideration

Whether the Executing Court was justified in dismissing the application filed by the petitioner as a third party obstructor under Order XXI Rules 97, 98, and 101 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, without conducting a proper inquiry and without considering the objections on merits.

Final Decision

The High Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the impugned order dated 03.02.2024 passed by the Prl. Sr. Civil Judge and JMFC, Hubballi, in EP No. 228/2023, and remitted the matter back to the Executing Court for fresh consideration. The Executing Court was directed to consider the application on merits and pass appropriate orders after giving an opportunity of hearing to all parties.

Law Points

Order XXI Rules 97
98
101 CPC
Third party obstructor
Execution proceedings
Summary dismissal
Inquiry
Merits

Case Details

2024 LawText (KAR) (09) 10

WP No. 100722 of 2024 (GM-CPC)

2024-09-27

H.P.Sandesh

Sri. Kiran V. Ron, Sri. V.H. Ron (for petitioner); Sri. Abhishek Kalled (for R1-R6); Sri. Mallikarjunswamy B. Hiremath (for R7 & R8); Sri. Praveen G. Kulkarni (for R16)

Rajesh Enterprises, R/by its partner Naresh Godar Shah

Smt. Jakkavva W/o. Basavanneppa Kampli and others

Nature of Litigation

Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging an order passed by the Executing Court dismissing the petitioner's application as a third party obstructor in execution proceedings.

Remedy Sought

Petitioner sought a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 03.02.2024 passed in EP No. 228/2023 by the Prl. Sr. Civil Judge and JMFC, Hubballi, dismissing the application filed by the petitioner as a third party obstructor under Order XXI Rules 97, 98, and 101 CPC.

Filing Reason

The petitioner, claiming to be a third party obstructor, filed an application in execution proceedings which was dismissed by the Executing Court without conducting an inquiry or considering the objections on merits.

Previous Decisions

The Executing Court dismissed the petitioner's application under Order XXI Rules 97, 98, and 101 CPC vide order dated 03.02.2024.

Issues

Whether the Executing Court was justified in dismissing the application of the third party obstructor without conducting an inquiry and without considering the objections on merits.

Submissions/Arguments

The petitioner argued that the Executing Court dismissed the application summarily without any inquiry and without assigning reasons, which is contrary to the provisions of Order XXI Rules 97, 98, and 101 CPC.

Ratio Decidendi

Under Order XXI Rules 97, 98, and 101 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the Executing Court is required to conduct an inquiry and adjudicate upon the objections raised by a third party obstructor. The court cannot dismiss such an application summarily without proper consideration and without assigning reasons.

Judgment Excerpts

The impugned order is cryptic and does not assign any reasons for dismissing the application. The Executing Court is required to conduct an inquiry and adjudicate upon the objections raised by a third party obstructor.

Procedural History

The petitioner filed an application under Order XXI Rules 97, 98, and 101 CPC in Execution Petition No. 228/2023 before the Prl. Sr. Civil Judge and JMFC, Hubballi. The Executing Court dismissed the application on 03.02.2024. Aggrieved by the dismissal, the petitioner filed the present writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench.