Case Note & Summary
The revision petitioner, M.M. Babu, filed a civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 17.09.2025 passed by the XIV Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai, in E.A.SR.No.45179 of 2025 in E.P.No.275 of 2021. The revision petitioner was an obstructor who claimed to be a bonafide tenant of the premises situated in the ground floor under the name and style of 'New Ramakrishna Lunch Home' in the western wing of the YMCA building at No.223, N.S.C. Bose Road, Chennai. The first respondent, Young Men Christian Association (YMCA), represented by its General Secretary P. Asir Pandian, had obtained an eviction order in RCOP.No.1299 of 2018 against the erstwhile tenants. In execution, E.P.No.275 of 2021 was filed, and the revision petitioner obstructed the execution. The first respondent then filed E.A.No.4 of 2025 for removal of obstruction, which was allowed on 19.08.2025 after hearing the revision petitioner. Subsequently, the revision petitioner was dispossessed on 19.09.2025. Thereafter, the revision petitioner filed E.A.SR.No.45179 of 2025 under Order XXI Rule 99 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), complaining of dispossession and seeking restoration of possession. The executing court rejected the application at the SR stage, holding it was not maintainable. The revision petitioner challenged this rejection. The court considered the submissions of the parties. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner argued that the application under Order XXI Rule 99 CPC is maintainable as the provision allows any person other than the judgment debtor to establish his rights in the property from which he has been dispossessed. He further contended that the prior removal of obstruction order does not bar the application, and the revision petitioner had an independent right in the property, supported by correspondence and payment of Rs.40 lakhs towards arrears of rent. The learned counsel for the first respondent argued that the application was not maintainable as the revision petitioner had already been heard in the removal of obstruction proceedings and the order therein had become final. The court analyzed the provisions of Order XXI Rules 97, 99, and 101 CPC. It held that Order XXI Rule 99 CPC is a substantive provision allowing any person dispossessed in execution of a decree, other than the judgment debtor, to apply for restoration of possession. The court distinguished between proceedings under Rule 97 (removal of obstruction) and Rule 99 (claim by dispossessed person), noting that they are separate and distinct. The court observed that the removal of obstruction order does not adjudicate the independent rights of the obstructor, and therefore, the subsequent application under Rule 99 is not barred by res judicata. The court further held that rejecting the application at the SR stage on maintainability grounds was improper; the court should first number the application and then decide the issue after hearing the parties. The court set aside the impugned order and directed the executing court to number the application and proceed in accordance with law. The civil revision petition was allowed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure Code - Order XXI Rule 99 - Maintainability of Application by Obstructor - Independent Right - The court considered whether an obstructor, who was not a party to the rent control proceedings and claimed to be a bonafide tenant, can maintain an application under Order XXI Rule 99 CPC after being dispossessed during execution. The court held that the application is maintainable and cannot be rejected at the SR stage, as the provision allows any person other than the judgment debtor to establish his rights in the property from which he has been dispossessed. The court set aside the order of the executing court and directed it to number the application and proceed in accordance with law. (Paras 1-16) B) Civil Procedure Code - Order XXI Rule 99 - Effect of Prior Removal of Obstruction Order - Res Judicata - The court examined whether the dismissal of an application for removal of obstruction under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC bars a subsequent application under Order XXI Rule 99 CPC by the same obstructor. The court held that the two proceedings are distinct and the removal of obstruction order does not operate as res judicata, as the obstructor's right to claim independent title or possession is not adjudicated in the removal of obstruction proceedings. (Paras 7-12) C) Civil Procedure Code - Order XXI Rule 99 - SR Stage Rejection - Improper - The court held that rejecting an application at the SR stage on the ground of maintainability is improper, as the court must first number the application and then decide the issue of maintainability after hearing the parties. The court relied on the principle that procedural technicalities should not defeat substantive rights. (Paras 13-16)
Issue of Consideration
Whether an application under Order XXI Rule 99 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 filed by an obstructor who was dispossessed during execution of an eviction decree is maintainable, and whether the executing court can reject such application at the SR stage on the ground of maintainability.
Final Decision
The civil revision petition is allowed. The order dated 17.09.2025 in E.A.SR.No.45179 of 2025 in E.P.No.275 of 2021 passed by the learned XIV Judge, Small Causes Court at Chennai is set aside. The executing court is directed to number the application and proceed in accordance with law. No order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
Law Points
- Order XXI Rule 99 CPC
- maintainability of application by obstructor
- independent right
- removal of obstruction order does not bar subsequent application
- SR stage rejection improper
