Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:85688 Court No. - 2 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 5256 of 2025 Petitioner :- Smt. Reshma Khan Respondent :- Smt. Anjum Fatima And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anil Kumar Mishra,Ganesh Mani Hon'ble Saral Srivastava,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The petitioner by means of the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has assailed the order dated 09.01.2025 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No.2, Aligarh in Civil Revision No.30 of 2024. 3. It appears that petitioner has filed an application under Order 21 Rule 97 of C.P.C. against the execution of a decree dated 09.07.2010 passed in S.C.C. Suit No.4 of 2006 which application is registered as Misc. Case No.10 of 2023. 4. It appears that petitioner has filed an application for stay of further proceedings of Execution Case No.3 of 2010. The Trial Court by detailed order dated 13.02.2024 rejected the said application. The petitioner, thereafter, preferred Civil Revision No.10 of 2024 which was also dismissed by the Revisional Court. 5. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the application under Order 21 Rule 97 of C.P.C. has been instituted by the petitioner, wife of Imran Khan, who has been arrayed as defendant no.2 in the S.C.C. Suit No.4 of 2006 which suit has been decreed in favour of respondent no.1- Smt. Anjum Fatima. It is contended that the application under Order 21 Rule 97 has been instituted by the petitioner on the ground that petitioner should have been given an opportunity by the Trial Court while decreeing the S.C.C. Suit No.4 of 2006 to lead evidence, and in such view of the fact, the order passed by the Trial Court prejudices the rights of the petitioner, and since the case under Order 21 Rule 97 of C.P.C. has been made out, therefore, Trial Court ought to have stayed further proceedings of Execution Case No.3 of 2010. 6. It is further submitted that both the Courts below have committed manifest error of law in rejecting the stay application. 7. Be that as it may, it appears that application under Order 21 Rule 97 of C.P.C has been instituted by the petitioner, wife of Imran Khan, who is arrayed as defendant no.2 in S.C.C. Suit No.4 of 2006, only to thwart the execution of decree. 8. Perusal of application under Order 21 Rule 97 of C.P.C. discloses that the application has been instituted on the ground that petitioner was a necessary party in S.C.C. Suit No.4 of 2006, and without impleading the petitioner, the respondent no.1 got the suit decreed. 9. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner is the wife of Imran Khan, who is defendant no.2 in the S.C.C. Suit No.4 of 2006, and in such view of the fact, it is hard to believe that petitioner was not aware of the pendency of S.C.C. Suit No.4 of 2006. 10. If the rights of the petitioner were going to be effected by the decree which was to be passed in S.C.C. Suit No.4 of 2006, the petitioner ought to have filed an application for impleadment in S.C.C. Suit No.4 of 2006 for being impleaded as party which has not been done by the petitioner. 11. This Court on the perusal of application under Order 21 Rule 97 of C.P.C. prima facie of the opinion that none of the ingredients of Order 21 Rule 97 of C.P.C. are present in the present case so as to entitle the petitioner to file an application under Order 21 Rule 97 of C.P.C. In this respect, paragraph 6 of the application of Order 21 Rule 97 of C.P.C is reproduced herein below:- "6. यह कक शममम बबगम कब बबननमन कब बनरब मम कवपकम पथम पक कक सन 2005 सब जननकनरम पपरर रप सब हब। और शममम बबगम कब कवरद कवपकम पथम पक दनरन आज तक ककई कनयरवनहम नहह कक गई हब और बबननमन शममम बबगम आज तक ककसम भम नयनयनलय दनरन अपनसत नहम हहआ हब। आज तक पभनवम हब। और कबजन व दखल आज भम सन 2005 सब शममम बबगम कब पनस लगनतनर चलन आ रहन हह । जबकक उक लघघवनद सन 2006 कन हह और कवपकम पथम पक कक यह जननकरम थम कक शममम बबगम कब हक मब बबननमन हक चघकन हह और उसम कन कबजन व दखल हब जजसब पककनर मघकदमन बननयन जननन आवशयक हब परनतघ जननबपझकर पककनर मघरदमन नहह बननयन गयन। कडकक कवपक कदतमय पक कब कवरदद हह । जजनकन ककई कबजन व दखल नहम हह। उक कडकक कब आधनर पर शममम बबगम व पनथरयन सब कबजन व दखल पनप नहम ककयन ज सकतन हह।" 12. In such view of the fact, this Court finds that Trial Court as well as Revisional Court has not committed any error of law in not staying the further proceedings of Execution Case No.3 of 2010. 13. Thus, for the reasons given above, the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India lacks merit, and is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Order Date :- 21.5.2025 Sattyarth Digitally signed by :- SATTYARTH ANAND High Court of Judicature at Allahabad