- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37550 WP No. 26965 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 26965 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: A RAVIKANTHA REDDY S/O SRI A. V KRISHNA REDDY AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/A NO.90, 2ND FLOOR, UB ELEGA KARTHIK NAGAR, OUTER RING ROAD, MARATHAHALLI, BANGALORE - 560037. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. S KALYAN BASAVARAJ, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MR PETER ISSAC S/O LATE DR. BENJAMIN ISSAC AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, PB NO. 8, M V EXTENSION, GATTIGANABBI ROAD, HOSAKOTE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 114 2. DASARATH S/O LATE PILLA CHIKKANNA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, JINNAGARA VILLAGE, JADIGENAHALLI HOBLI, HOSKOTE TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 562 114 Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37550 WP No. 26965 of 2025 3. DEEPAK KUMAR S/O P SAMPATHILAL AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, BHANDARI BUILDING, MARKET ROAD, HOSAKOTE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 114. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. A. ANIL KUMAR SHETTY, ADV. FOR C/R3.) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 19.08.2025 (PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A) PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL, HOSAKOTE, IN EXECUTION PETITION NO.4 OF 2024 CONSEQUENTLY ALLOWING IA NO. 2 FILED BY THE PETITIONER AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioner is before this Court calling in question an order of the concerned Court dated 19.08.2025 and consequently seeks a direction by issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Executing Court to conduct an enquiry as obtaining under Order XXI Rule 101 of CPC. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37550 WP No. 26965 of 2025 2. Heard Sri.S.Kalyan Basavaraj, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.A.Anil Kumar Shetty, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3. 3. Petitioner is the objector. The first respondent is the Judgment-Debtor. The second respondent is the plaintiff- Decree Holder and so he is the third respondent. A land in Survey No.76/5 measuring 2 acres and 20 guntas becomes the subject matter of the proceedings in OS 1522 of 2018. The suit came to be decreed on 18.02.2019. The averments in the petition is that respondents No.2 and 3 still attempted to interfere with the possession of the petitioner claiming to have been obtained a decree as observed hereinabove. The petitioner then, is said to have instituted proceedings in a separate suit in OS 1276 of 2020 which was later renumbered as OS 3031 of 2022. The issue in the lis does not pertain to the other suit i.e. OS 1276 of 2020. The issue is with regard to the execution. 4. The respondent-Decree Holder filed an execution petition in Execution No.4 of 2024 to execute the aforesaid decree in OS 1522 of 2018. The petitioner herein - the objector - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37550 WP No. 26965 of 2025 files an application under Order XXI Rule 97 read with 101 and Section 47 of CPC seeking to implead himself into the execution contending that he is a party interested. The concerned Court, by the impugned order rejects the application under Order XXI Rule 97 of CPC. The issue now would be whether an order rejecting an application under Order XXI Rule 97 of CPC would be appealable or a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India would be entertainable against the said order rejecting an application under Order XXI Rule 97 of CPC. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Sri. S. Kalyan Basavaraj, would submit that the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of SAMEER SINGH V. ABDUL RAB AND OTHERS reported in (2015) 1 SCC 379 considered the very issue and holds that if the concerned Court in answering to an application under Order XXI Rule 97 of CPC does not conduct an enquiry then it becomes an order contrary to law and therefore, the petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India before this Court would become entertainable. The learned counsel would further emphasize on the fact that the concerned Court ignores that there is an order of injunction not to alienate - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37550 WP No. 26965 of 2025 granted by the same Court and therefore, the Court could not have rejected the application filed by the petitioner. The learned counsel submits that the same should have undertaken by the concerned Court. 6. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent would seek to distinguish the judgment in the case of SAMEER SINGH (supra). The learned counsel would submit that judgment in SAMEER SINGH was rendered on a different circumstance altogether, and therefore the same would not become applicable to the facts obtaining in the case at hand. Both the counsel for the petitioner and the respondent have relied on certain paragraphs of the judgment in the case of SAMEER SINGH, which would bear consideration in the course of the order, query their relevance. 7. The learned counsel submits that he was wanting to file an application seeking quashment of a document appended to the objections. Be those submissions as they are, as observed hereinabove. The issue that merits consideration now at this juncture is whether an order passed rejecting an application under Order XXI Rule 97 is an appealable order as it - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37550 WP No. 26965 of 2025 is a decree by itself or a petition under Article 227 is entertainable on the said issue. Since the sheet anchor of the counsel for the petitioner is the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of SAMEER SINGH, I deem it appropriate to notice the paragraphs that the learned counsel seeks to place reliance upon. 8. The Hon'ble Apex Court in SAMEER SINGH has held as follows: “20. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellants is that if the scheme underlying the said Rules is appositely appreciated, it is clear as crystal that the legislature in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings has empowered the executing court to conduct necessary enquiry and adjudicate by permitting the parties to adduce evidence, both oral and documentary, and to determine the right, title and interest of the parties and, therefore, such an order has been given the status of a decree. As has been put forth by him, a proceeding in terms of Rule 97 or Rule 99 is in the nature of a suit and the adjudication is similar to that of a suit and when in the case at hand, the court has declined to embark upon any enquiry by calling for reply, recording evidence and appropriately adjudicating the controversy, the order passed cannot be regarded under Order 21 Rule 103 as a decree. In this context, the authorities that have been commended to us need to be carefully noticed. 21. In Noorduddin v. K.L. Anand, the executing court had rejected the application of the appellant therein on the ground that the High Court had already adjudicated the lis. Analysing the language employed in Rules 97, 98 and 100 to 104, the Court held : (SCC p. 249, para 8) - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37550 WP No. 26965 of 2025 “8. Thus, the scheme of the Code clearly adumbrates that when an application has been made under Order 21, Rule 97, the court is enjoined to adjudicate upon the right, title and interest claimed in the property arising between the parties to a proceeding or between the decree-holder and the person claiming independent right, title or interest in the immovable property and an order in that behalf be made. The determination shall be conclusive between the parties as if it was a decree subject to right of appeal and not a matter to be agitated by a separate suit. In other words, no other proceedings were allowed to be taken. It has to be remembered that preceding the Civil Procedure Code (Amendment) Act, 1976, right of suit under Order 21 Rule 103 of 1908 Code was available which has been now taken away. By necessary implication, the legislature relegated the parties to an adjudication of right, title or interest in the immovable property under execution and finality has been accorded to it. Thus, the scheme of the Code appears to be to put an end to the protraction of the execution and to shorten the litigation between the parties or persons claiming right, title and interest in the immovable property in execution.” Elucidating further, the Court opined that adjudication before execution is an efficacious remedy to prevent fraud, oppression, abuse of the process of the court or miscarriage of justice. The object of law is to mete out justice and, therefore, adjudication under Order 21 Rules 98, 100 and 101 and its successive rules is sine qua non to a finality of the adjudication of the right, title or interest in the immovable property under execution. 22. In Babulal, the appellant apprehending that it would be dispossessed in an execution proceeding had filed an application based on possessory title and obtained interim injunction. He had also filed an application stating, inter alia, that he should not be dispossessed. His objection was overruled by the executing court holding that since he had not been dispossessed, an application under Order 21 Rule 98 was not maintainable. The said view was affirmed by the High Court in civil revision petition. The Court while interpreting Order 21 Rules 98 to 102 referred - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37550 WP No. 26965 of 2025 to the decision in Bhanwar Lal v. Satyanarain and opined that it is clear that an adjudication is required to be conducted under Order 21 Rule 98 before removal of the obstruction caused by the objector or the appellant and a finding is required to be recorded in that behalf. The Court ruled that the order is treated as a decree under Order 21 Rule 103 and it is subject to an appeal. It has been observed in the said case that prior to 1976, the order was subject to suit, but under the amended Code, right of suit under Order 21 Rule 63 of old Code has been taken away, and the determination of the question of the right, title or interest of the objector in the immovable property under execution needs to be adjudicated under Order 21 Rule 98 which is an order and is a decree under Order 21 Rule 103 for the purpose of appeal subject to the same conditions as to an appeal or otherwise as if it were a decree. The Court further opined that the procedure prescribed is a complete code in itself and, therefore, the executing court is required to determine the question. 23. In Ghasi Ram while making a distinction between the provisions prior to the amendment brought in 1976 in CPC and the situation after the amendment, a two-Judge Bench observed thus : (SCC p. 205, para 7) “7. … the position has changed after amendment of the Code of Civil Procedure by the Amendment Act of 1976. Now, under the amended provisions, all questions, including right, title, interests in the property arising between the parties to the proceedings under Rule 97, have to be adjudicated by the executing court itself and not left to be decided by way of a fresh suit.” 24. In S. Rajeswari, the appellant was one of the persons who had obstructed the execution of a decree obtained by the first respondent therein and had filed an application under Section 151 CPC which was rejected by the executing court on the ground that it was not maintainable. Being grieved by the said order he preferred a revision petition which was allowed by the High Court. The Court treated the application preferred under Section 151 CPC to be one under Order 21 Rule 97 because the executing court proceeded to record evidence and thereupon adjudicated the matter. The evidence of - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37550 WP No. 26965 of 2025 the decree-holder was considered and a conclusion was arrived at that the identity of plot in question had not been established and thereby the plaintiff was disabled from executing the decree for possession of the land. A contention was raised before this Court that the High Court had erred in entertaining a revision petition under Section 115 CPC, for the order was a decree under Order 21 Rule 103 of CPC and hence, an appeal lay. The said contention was accepted by this Court. 25. At this juncture, we may refer with profit to the pronouncement in Brahmdeo Chaudhary v. Rishikesh Prasad Jaiswal, wherein a two-Judge Bench scanning the anatomy of the Rules came to hold that : (SCC pp. 702- 03, para 9) “9. … a stranger to the decree who claims an independent right, title and interest in the decretal property can offer his resistance before getting actually dispossessed. He can equally agitate his grievance and claim for adjudication of his independent right, title and interest in the decretal property even after losing possession as per Order 21 Rule 99. Order 21 Rule 97 deals with a stage which is prior to the actual execution of the decree for possession wherein the grievance of the obstructionist can be adjudicated upon before actual delivery of possession to the decree- holder. While Order 21 Rule 99 on the other hand deals with the subsequent stage in the execution proceedings where a stranger claiming any right, title and interest in the decretal property might have got actually dispossessed and claims restoration of possession on adjudication of his independent right, title and interest dehors the interest of the judgment-debtor. Both these types of enquiries in connection with the right, title and interest of a stranger to the decree are clearly contemplated by the aforesaid scheme of Order 21 and it is not as if that such a stranger to the decree can come in the picture only at the final stage after losing the possession and not before it if he is vigilant enough to raise his objection and obstruction before the warrant for possession gets actually executed against him.” - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37550 WP No. 26965 of 2025 26. The aforesaid authorities clearly spell out that the court has the authority to adjudicate all the questions pertaining to right, title or interest in the property arising between the parties. It also includes the claim of a stranger who apprehends dispossession or has already been dispossessed from the immovable property. The self-contained code, as has been emphasised by this Court, enjoins the executing court to adjudicate the lis and the purpose is to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. It is also so because prior to 1976 amendment the grievance was required to be agitated by filing a suit but after the amendment the entire enquiry has to be conducted by the executing court. Order 21 Rule 101 provides for the determination of necessary issues. Rule 103 clearly stipulates that when an application is adjudicated upon under Rule 98 or Rule 100 the said order shall have the same force as if it were a decree. Thus, it is a deemed decree. If a court declines to adjudicate on the ground that it does not have jurisdiction, the said order cannot earn the status of a decree. If an executing court only expresses its inability to adjudicate by stating that it lacks jurisdiction, then the status of the order has to be different. In the instant case the executing court has expressed an opinion that it has become functus officio and hence, it cannot initiate or launch any enquiry. The appellants had invoked the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution assailing the order passed by the executing court on the foundation that it had failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it. The appellants had approached the High Court as per the dictum laid down by this Court in Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai. 27. Whether the executing court, in the obtaining circumstances, has correctly expressed the view that it has become functus officio or not and thereby it has jurisdiction or not, fundamentally pertains to rectification of a jurisdictional error. It is so as there has been no adjudication. If a subordinate court exercises its jurisdiction not vested in it by law or fails to exercise the jurisdiction so vested, the said order under Section 115 of the Code is revisable as has been held in Joy - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37550 WP No. 26965 of 2025 Chand Lal Babu v. Kamalaksha Chaudhury. The same principle has been reiterated in Keshardeo Chamria v. Radha Kissen Chamria and Chaube Jagdish Prasad v. Ganga Prasad Chaturvedi. Needless to emphasise, the said principle is well settled. After the amendment of Section 115 CPC w.e.f. 1-7-2002, the said power is exercised under Article 227 of the Constitution as per the principle laid down in Surya Dev Rai. Had the executing court apart from expressing the view that it had become functus officio had adjudicated the issues on merits, the question would have been different, for in that event there would have been an adjudication." (Emphasis supplied) The issue did not stop at the judgment rendered in SAMEER SINGH. The Hon'ble Apex Court in its later judgment in the case of PERIYAMMAL (DEAD) THROUGH L.RS. V. V. RAJAMANI reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 507, while quoting the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of SAMEER SINGH has held as follows: "47. In Samir Singh and Anr. v. Abdul Rab, reported in 2014:INSC:721: (2015) 1 SCC 379, this Court, after considering its previous judgment in Brahmadeo Chaudhary (supra) has held thus: 26. The aforesaid authorities clearly spell out that the court has the authority to adjudicate all the questions pertaining to right, title or interest in the property arising between the parties. It also includes the claim of a stranger who apprehends dispossession or has already been dispossessed from the immovable property. The self-contained Code, as has been emphasised by this Court, enjoins the executing - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37550 WP No. 26965 of 2025 court to adjudicate the lis and the purpose is to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. It is also so because prior to 1976 amendment the grievance was required to be agitated by filing a suit but after the amendment the entire enquiry has to be conducted by the executing court. Order XXI, Rule 101 provides for the determination of necessary issues. Rule 103 clearly stipulates that when an application is adjudicated upon Under Rule 98 or Rule 100 the said order shall have the same force as if it were a decree. `Thus, it is a deemed decree. If a Court declines to adjudicate on the ground that it does not have jurisdiction, the said order cannot earn the status of a decree. If an executing court only expresses its inability to adjudicate by stating that it lacks jurisdiction, then the status of the order has to be different. (...) (Emphasis supplied) 48. A conjoint reading of the relevant provisions and the principles laid down by this Court makes it clear that in execution of decree for possession of immovable property, the executing court delivers actual physical possession of the `decretal land to the decree holder. Rule 35 confers jurisdiction on the executing Court to remove any person, who is bound by the decree, and who refuses to vacate the property. The words "any person who is bound by the decree", clearly mandate that removal can only be of a person who is bound by the decree. Rules 97 to 101 deal with situation when execution is obstructed or resisted by "any person" claiming right, title or interest in the property. The words "any person" include even a stranger to a decree resisting the decree of possession as not being bound by a decree or by claiming independent right, title or interest to the property. 49. Thus, Rule 97 not only provides remedy to a decree holder in obtaining possession of an immovable property but also to a stranger who obstructs or resists delivery of possession of the property by claiming derivative title from the judgment debtor or independent right, title or interest in the decretal property. Whereas, Rule 99 gives - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37550 WP No. 26965 of 2025 right to a third party claiming right, title or interest in the property to seek restoration of the decretal property. Suffice it to say that the remedy Under Rule 99 is available when a person claiming right to the decretal property is already dispossessed. 50. Rule 101 enjoins upon the executing Court dealing with application Under Rule 97 or 99 to determine all questions including questions relating to right, title or interest in the property, arising between the parties and relevant to the adjudication of the application. As held by this Court in Silverline Forum (supra) the question that the executing court is obliged to determine Under Rule 101 must possess to adjuncts viz. (i) that such question should have legally arisen between the parties and (ii) such question must be relevant for consideration and determination between the parties. Upon adjudication of such questions, the executing court is under an obligation to pass appropriate order as contemplated Under Rule 98 or 100, as the case may be. When eventually such order is passed, it would be treated as decree and no separate Suit en would lie against such order. It therefore follows that the only remedy is to prefer an appeal before the appropriate court against such deemed decree. (Emphasis supplied) The Apex Court holds that SAMEER SINGH was rendered on a different circumstance and SAMEER SINGH itself recognizes the fact that unless the jurisdictional issue has cropped up at the stage of Order XXI Rule 97, then this Court would entertain the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, failing which, it is a decree by itself and petition under Article 227 is not entertainable. - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37550 WP No. 26965 of 2025 9. In the light of judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of PERIYAMMAL, which distinguishes the judgment in the case of SAMEER SINGH and is a judgment to a later point in time, the said judgment would become binding to hold that SAMEER SINGH was rendered on a different circumstance altogether and therefore, the petition would not merit any entertainment. 10. Qua, the prayer i.e., seeking quashment of an order that rejects the application under Order XXI Rule 97 of the CPC, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is entitled to ancillary prayers that are now sought to be projected before this Court. If the petition itself is not entertainable, any ancillary prayers to be granted would be without jurisdiction at the hands of this Court and the petitioner will have to avail the remedy of an appeal and all projections that are made before this Court to be projected before the Appellate Court. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner has now handed over an amendment application seeking to amend the - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37550 WP No. 26965 of 2025 prayers so that it would become entertainable at the hands of this Court. 12. The consideration of the amendment application is also not necessary on this score, if the foundation on the superstructure would remain. Leaving open the remedy of filing an appeal or any other remedy available in law, the petition stands rejected. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE MKM List No.: 2 Sl No.: 10