The Supreme Court has ruled that applications under Section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), which raise disputes over property rights after a decree has been passed, should be treated as applications under Order 21 Rule 97. This ensures that such matters are adjudicated within the framework of execution proceedings.
Distinguishing between the two provisions, the Court noted that while Section 47 CPC deals with matters related to the execution, discharge, or satisfaction of a decree, Order 21 Rule 97 is specifically designed to handle resistance or obstruction to possession, including claims from third parties. If a Section 47 application raises issues of right, title, or interest in the property, the executing court must treat it as an application under Order 21 Rule 97 and adjudicate it under Order 21 Rule 101.
A bench comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and Pankaj Mithal made this observation while addressing a case where respondents, after a decree had been passed, filed an application under Section 47 CPC claiming to be bona fide cultivating tenants to prevent their eviction. The Court held that their application, in substance, was one for determining possessory rights and should be dealt with under Order 21 Rule 97.
The Court emphasized that executing courts do not have the authority to question the validity of a decree but must resolve property-related objections through the appropriate procedural mechanism. Applying this principle, the Court found that the respondents had failed to establish an independent right to possession and dismissed their claims as collusive, raised only after the decree had been passed.
This ruling reinforces the procedural clarity in execution proceedings, ensuring that property rights disputes emerging post-decree are addressed within the correct legal framework.
