The Supreme Court has stepped into a growing legal tangle that’s left lower courts split and litigants guessing: Can someone not directly named in a court decree step in and say, “Hey, don’t throw me out!”?
At the center of the storm is Order XXI Rule 97 of the Civil Procedure Code — a rule that governs what happens when there’s resistance to enforcing a civil court’s decision, like taking back property. The big question: Does this rule protect only decree-holders and auction buyers, or can outsiders — say, a spouse or tenant — use it to defend their claim?
The confusion comes from the Supreme Court itself. On one hand, there’s the 1997 case Brahmdeo Choudhary v. Rishikesh Prasad Jaiswal, where the Court said even third parties facing eviction could invoke the rule. But fast-forward to 2022, and in Sriram Housing Finance v. Omesh Misra Memorial Charitable Trust, the Court tightened the doors, saying the rule was only for decree-holders and auction purchasers.
Now, a new case has nudged the Court to settle the score.
A woman, claiming ownership of property auctioned off to recover money allegedly misappropriated by her late husband — a bank employee — found herself tossed aside by both the trial court and the High Court. They told her she wasn’t eligible to use Order XXI Rule 97. She disagreed, waving the Brahmdeo precedent like a red flag and arguing that her right to stay put should be protected.
The bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Prasanna B. Varale heard her plea. Spotting a clear clash in rulings, they decided it’s time to step in. They issued notice in the matter and, critically, ruled that she can’t be forced out of the property for now — unless the Court itself says so.
The legal tug-of-war is far from over. But come August 2025, the Supreme Court will have its chance to lay down the law once and for all: When a court order hits the ground, who’s really allowed to push back?
