Case Background
An eviction suit, Eviction Suit No. 01 of 2008, was filed by a landlord against his tenant for eviction from a shop. The ground taken in the suit was the landlord’s personal necessity. The shop was part of ancestral property allotted to the landlord after a family partition.
In the plaint, the landlord described his entire allotted property in Schedule-I. It related to Khata No. 2, Plot No. 243, measuring 1 Katha 1½ dhur in village Kachurbari (Shyampur Bazar), P.S. Adapur, District East Champaran, with specific boundaries on all four sides.
The particular shop rented to the tenant was described separately in Schedule-II. It was a shop measuring 10 feet by 10 feet, standing on Plot No. 243, with detailed boundaries, including the landlord’s land on the south and west and other neighbours on the north and east. The tenant was paying Rs. 500 per month as rent.
The eviction suit ended in a decree in favour of the landlord. To enforce this decree, the landlord filed Execution Case No. 02 of 2013 for delivery of possession of the shop.
On 24.12.2017, when the Nazir (court officer) went to deliver possession to the landlord, a third person, later the petitioner in the civil revision, resisted the process. This person, Suresh Prasad Yadav, was not a party to the eviction suit.
He then filed Misc. Case No. 01 of 2018 in the execution proceedings under Order XXI Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure (C.P.C.), claiming that the Nazir was trying to take possession of his own premises instead of the shop covered by the decree.
By order dated 10.09.2018, the Munsif, Raxaul, rejected his objection. The Munsif held that the petition was filed only to defeat the benefit of the decree and that the land purchased by the petitioner was different from the land covered by the eviction decree.
Aggrieved, the objector filed Civil Revision No. 150 of 2018 before the Patna High Court challenging the Munsif’s order.
What the Court Examined and Decided
The Patna High Court, through Hon’ble Mr. Justice Birendra Kumar, heard both sides and focused on one central question: can a complete stranger to the eviction suit and to the specific suit property use Order XXI of the C.P.C. to resist execution of a decree?
The Court first recorded that the sole petitioner was a stranger to Eviction Suit No. 01 of 2008 and also to the suit property itself. Yet, he had resisted the execution of the decree for delivery of possession and had invoked Order XXI Rule 97 C.P.C.
The petitioner’s stand was that he had purchased a portion of land in the same Plot No. 243 through a registered sale deed dated 30.05.2017 from Raj Kumar Maskara. His case was that when the Nazir went to deliver possession, the Nazir tried to take possession from the petitioner’s portion instead of the tenant’s shop. On this basis, he claimed he had a genuine cause to resist the execution.
The petitioner relied on judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, especially Brahmdeo Chaudhary v. Rishikesh Prasad Jaiswal & another, AIR 1997 SC 856, and N.S.S. Narayana Sarma & Ors. v. M/s. Goldstone Exports P. Ltd. & Ors., 2002(1) PLJR (SC) 71, to argue that a stranger who resists execution is entitled to have his claim adjudicated in the execution proceedings itself.
On the other hand, counsel for the decree-holder (landlord) submitted that the petitioner had, in fact, been a witness for the tenant in the original eviction suit. According to the decree-holder, in collusion with the tenant, the petitioner was now trying to delay the eviction despite the decree having become final. It was argued that he had no real claim over the specific suit shop and had created a fictitious case before the execution court.
To test these rival claims, the High Court closely examined the sale deed produced by the petitioner (Annexure-8), dated 30.05.2017, executed by Raj Kumar Maskara in his favour.
Under this deed, the petitioner purportedly purchased 1 dhur 11 Kanwa of land in Plot No. 243, with the following boundaries: North – Niz Mokir, South – the purchaser, East – Bibi Niyat Bano, and West – Niz Mokir (the executant). In the same deed, as Lot No. 2, he also purchased 3½ dhur in Plot No. 243 containing a room of 10 feet by 10 feet, bounded as: North – the executant of the deed, South – Late Ram Awatar Prasad (ancestor of the plaintiff), East – Road, and West – Bablu Chaurasiya.
The High Court compared these boundaries with those described in the eviction suit for the shop under decree. In the eviction suit, the northern boundary of the shop was shown as Krishna Kumar Maskara and Raj Kumar Maskara, the southern boundary as the plaintiff, the eastern side as “Rasta” (road) and the western side as the plaintiff.
From this comparison, the Court drew an important conclusion. The petitioner’s purchase was clearly situated in the northern boundary of the suit shop. Raj Kumar Maskara, from whom the petitioner bought, was already mentioned in the northern boundary of the suit property in the plaint.
Therefore, although both the petitioner’s land and the shop were part of the same Plot No. 243, they were distinct portions of that plot. The land claimed by the petitioner lay adjacent to, but separate from, the tenanted shop that was the subject of the eviction decree.
On this factual basis, the Court held that the suit property and the petitioner’s purchased property were “quite different”. The petitioner had acquired interest only in an adjoining portion of the same plot, not in the shop that was the subject of the decree.
Having clarified the factual position, the Court turned to the relevant provisions of Order XXI C.P.C. It reproduced and discussed Rules 97, 99, 101, 102 and 103.
Rule 97 allows the decree-holder to complain to the court if any person resists or obstructs delivery of possession in execution of a decree. The Court must then adjudicate such an application.
Rule 99 permits a person other than the judgment-debtor, who has been dispossessed by a decree-holder or auction purchaser, to apply to the court against such dispossession. Rule 101 mandates that all questions relating to right, title or interest in the property, arising between the parties in such applications, must be decided by the executing court itself and not by a separate suit. Rule 102 carves out an exception for transferees pendente lite of the judgment-debtor. Rule 103 gives the force of a decree to such orders.
The High Court then examined the Supreme Court decisions cited by the petitioner. In Brahmdeo Chaudhary, the Supreme Court had held that a stranger to the decree, who resists execution, can seek adjudication of his independent claim even before being dispossessed; he is not confined only to a post-dispossession remedy under Rule 99.
However, the Patna High Court noted a crucial distinction. In Brahmdeo Chaudhary, the stranger’s claim related to the very same property which was the subject of the decree. Here, the petitioner’s claim was over a “quite different subject matter”, only lying by the side of the suit property as its northern boundary.
Similarly, in N.S.S. Narayana Sarma, the strangers to the decree had claimed rights over the very property that was under decree, on the basis of transfer and other grounds. Again, their dispute was directly about the decree property itself.
Therefore, the Court held that these Supreme Court judgments did not help the petitioner. They applied to situations where a stranger claimed an independent right in the very property under execution. In contrast, the petitioner here had no interest in the suit property at all.
On this reasoning, the Court concluded that the petitioner was not just a stranger to the eviction suit but also a stranger to the suit property itself. Having no right, title or interest in the shop, he had no locus standi to resist delivery of possession to the decree-holder under Order XXI.
The civil revision was therefore found to be without merit. The High Court dismissed it with costs of Rs. 10,000, payable to the decree-holder within two months. It also directed that if the amount was not paid within that period, the Execution Court would recover the same in accordance with law.
Why This Judgment Matters
This decision is important for landlords and tenants involved in eviction proceedings, as well as for buyers of nearby property. The Patna High Court has made it clear that only a person who has some legal interest in the specific property under decree can use execution proceedings to raise objections.
If someone purchases a neighbouring portion in the same plot, that alone does not give them the right to stop an eviction decree relating to a different portion. The boundaries and exact description of the suit property become crucial.
The judgment also shows that courts will be cautious about attempts to delay execution of lawful decrees, especially when an eviction decree has attained finality. Filing objections without a real connection to the decreed property can result in dismissal with costs, as happened here.
For ordinary readers, the message is simple: if you buy property, check carefully what exactly you are purchasing and what is already under dispute. And if you are not connected to a property under a court decree, you cannot generally block the decree’s execution.
Legal Issues and Answers
Issue: Can a person who is a stranger to both the eviction suit and the specific suit property use Order XXI of the C.P.C. to resist execution of an eviction decree?
Answer: No. The Court held that since the petitioner had no interest in the suit shop and had purchased only an adjoining portion in the same plot, he had no locus standi to resist delivery of possession to the decree-holder.
Cases Cited by the Court
- Brahmdeo Chaudhary v. Rishikesh Prasad Jaiswal and another, AIR 1997 SC 856.
- N.S.S. Narayana Sarma & Ors. v. M/s. Goldstone Exports P. Ltd. & Ors., 2002(1) PLJR (SC) 71.
Case Details
Case Number: Civil Revision No. 150 of 2018
Case Title: Suresh Prasad Yadav v. Vinay Kumar Agarwal @ Vinod Kumar Agarwal
Citation: 2019 (2) PLJR 933
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Birendra Kumar
Advocates:
- For the Petitioner: Mr. Jitendra Prasad Singh, Advocate; Mr. Sunil Kumar No. III, Advocate; Mr. Bijendra Kumar, Advocate
- For the Respondent: Mr. Ashok Kumar, Advocate; Mr. Sushil Kumar Ojha, Advocate
Nature of the Case: Civil revision against an order of the Execution Court in an eviction decree execution proceeding under Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Date of Judgment: 05.04.2019
Court: High Court of Judicature at Patna
Link to Judgment: https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/OCMxNTAjMjAxOCMxI04=-Kf6g–am1–YkDptc=
If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about
how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar,
you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.
