CR-5761-2025 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 129 Manjot Singh Pawan Kumar and CORAM : HON'BLE MR Present: Mr. Mr. Abhishek Malik, Advocate Mr. for the petitioner. *** AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL 1. The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India 29.05.2025 (Annexure P Naresh Kumar Sharma party, have been dismissed without taking into account the provisions of Order 21 Rules 97 & 101 CPC. 2. In brief, the facts, as culled out from the petition, are that contesting respondents had filed a petiti short Rent Act) for ejection of the respondent from shop 2 & 162-2/B known as H.N. Collection, opposite Chiranjee Ashram, Darijan Wali Gali, Patiala and to hand over the posses in the site plan. In the said petition, while deciding the application for determination of arrears of rent, the learned Rent Controller assessed the interim rent under Section 25 read with Section 8 of the Rent arrears and charges upto 30.04.2024, directing the pay the same by 01.07.2024 and further directed him to continue paying rent @ 2025 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR Date of Decision: Versus Pawan Kumar and others HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL Mr. Mayur Karkra, Advocate Mr. Abhishek Malik, Advocate Mr. Abhishek Chhoker, Advocate for the petitioner. *** AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL, J. (ORAL) The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying for setting aside of the impugned order dated 29.05.2025 (Annexure P-15) passed in EXE-495 Naresh Kumar Sharma whereby the objections filed by the petitioner, being third been dismissed without taking into account the provisions of Order 21 101 CPC. In brief, the facts, as culled out from the petition, are that contesting respondents had filed a petition under Section 20 of the Punjab Rent Act, 1995 (for short Rent Act) for ejection of the respondent from shop 2/B known as H.N. Collection, opposite Chiranjee Ashram, Darijan Wali Gali, Patiala and to hand over the possession of the tenanted premises as described in the site plan. In the said petition, while deciding the application for determination of arrears of rent, the learned Rent Controller assessed the interim rent under Section 25 read with Section 8 of the Rent arrears and charges upto 30.04.2024, directing the pay the same by 01.07.2024 and further directed him to continue paying rent @ IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-5761-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:25.08.2025 ... Petitioner ... Respondent AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL , J. (ORAL) The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the praying for setting aside of the impugned order dated 495-2024 titled as Pawan Kumar Vs. jections filed by the petitioner, being third been dismissed without taking into account the provisions of Order 21 In brief, the facts, as culled out from the petition, are that contesting on under Section 20 of the Punjab Rent Act, 1995 (for short Rent Act) for ejection of the respondent from shop i.e. part of House No.162 2/B known as H.N. Collection, opposite Chiranjee Ashram, Darijan Wali sion of the tenanted premises as described in the site plan. In the said petition, while deciding the application for determination of arrears of rent, the learned Rent Controller assessed the interim rent under Section 25 read with Section 8 of the Rent Act at Rs.2,12,482/- towards arrears and charges upto 30.04.2024, directing the pro forma respondent-tenant to pay the same by 01.07.2024 and further directed him to continue paying rent @ IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Petitioner ... Respondents The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the praying for setting aside of the impugned order dated Pawan Kumar Vs. jections filed by the petitioner, being third been dismissed without taking into account the provisions of Order 21 In brief, the facts, as culled out from the petition, are that contesting on under Section 20 of the Punjab Rent Act, 1995 (for part of House No.162- 2/B known as H.N. Collection, opposite Chiranjee Ashram, Darijan Wali sion of the tenanted premises as described in the site plan. In the said petition, while deciding the application for determination of arrears of rent, the learned Rent Controller assessed the interim towards tenant to pay the same by 01.07.2024 and further directed him to continue paying rent @ PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.03 17:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh CR-5761-2025 (O&M) Rs.8,840/- per month during the pendency of the eviction petition w the very same day i.e. 01.07.2024, during the course of proceedings, learned counsel for the the information received from his client, the vacated the premises in dispute on that very day and handed over the possession to one Manjot Singh son of Harjit Singh i.e. petitioner herein, resident of House No.36-G, Bharpur Garden, Patiala, who is the nephew of the original owner of the shop in question, which was made part of zim 03.07.2024, the ejectment petition was allowed by the learned Rent Controller and directed eviction of the appeal was filed by the holders filed execution petition before the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Patiala (hereinafter referred to as the Executing Court) seeking warrant of possession and recovery of arrears of rent as lan arrest. Objections were filed by the taking up the plea of non already handed over possession of the tenant premises to the petiti Singh. Reply to said objections was filed by contesting respondents No.1 and 2 and vide order dated 29.11.2024, the Executing Court has dismissed the same. Thereafter, the petitioner he is lawful owner in possession of the demised premises as in family settlement, demised premises came to his share and further the decree is not executable against him as he was neither a party to the original suit n the said objections was filed by contesting respondents No.1 and 2 and vide 2025 (O&M) -2- per month during the pendency of the eviction petition w the very same day i.e. 01.07.2024, during the course of proceedings, learned counsel for the pro forma respondent suffered a statement to the effect that as per the information received from his client, the vacated the premises in dispute on that very day and handed over the possession to one Manjot Singh son of Harjit Singh i.e. petitioner herein, resident of House G, Bharpur Garden, Patiala, who is the nephew of the original owner of the ion, which was made part of zim 03.07.2024, the ejectment petition was allowed by the learned Rent Controller and directed eviction of the pro forma respondent from the tenanted premises. Since no appeal was filed by the pro forma respondent, respondents No.1 and 2 holders filed execution petition before the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Patiala (hereinafter referred to as the Executing Court) seeking warrant of possession and recovery of arrears of rent as lan arrest. Objections were filed by the pro forma taking up the plea of non-existence of landlord already handed over possession of the tenant premises to the petiti Singh. Reply to said objections was filed by contesting respondents No.1 and 2 and vide order dated 29.11.2024, the Executing Court has dismissed the same. Thereafter, the petitioner had filed objections being third party on the ground that he is lawful owner in possession of the demised premises as in family settlement, premises came to his share and further the decree is not executable against him as he was neither a party to the original suit n the said objections was filed by contesting respondents No.1 and 2 and vide per month during the pendency of the eviction petition without fail. On the very same day i.e. 01.07.2024, during the course of proceedings, learned respondent suffered a statement to the effect that as per the information received from his client, the pro forma respondent has already vacated the premises in dispute on that very day and handed over the possession to one Manjot Singh son of Harjit Singh i.e. petitioner herein, resident of House G, Bharpur Garden, Patiala, who is the nephew of the original owner of the ion, which was made part of zimni order dated 01.07.2024. On 03.07.2024, the ejectment petition was allowed by the learned Rent Controller and respondent from the tenanted premises. Since no respondent, respondents No.1 and 2-decree holders filed execution petition before the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Patiala (hereinafter referred to as the Executing Court) seeking warrant of possession and recovery of arrears of rent as land revenue as well as by way of pro forma respondent to the said petition existence of landlord-tenant relationship as he had already handed over possession of the tenant premises to the petitioner-Manjot Singh. Reply to said objections was filed by contesting respondents No.1 and 2 and vide order dated 29.11.2024, the Executing Court has dismissed the same. being third party on the ground that he is lawful owner in possession of the demised premises as in family settlement, premises came to his share and further the decree is not executable against him as he was neither a party to the original suit nor a judgment debtor. Reply to the said objections was filed by contesting respondents No.1 and 2 and vide ithout fail. On the very same day i.e. 01.07.2024, during the course of proceedings, learned respondent suffered a statement to the effect that as per respondent has already vacated the premises in dispute on that very day and handed over the possession to one Manjot Singh son of Harjit Singh i.e. petitioner herein, resident of House G, Bharpur Garden, Patiala, who is the nephew of the original owner of the ni order dated 01.07.2024. On 03.07.2024, the ejectment petition was allowed by the learned Rent Controller and respondent from the tenanted premises. Since no decree holders filed execution petition before the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Patiala (hereinafter referred to as the Executing Court) seeking warrant of d revenue as well as by way of respondent to the said petition tenant relationship as he had Manjot Singh. Reply to said objections was filed by contesting respondents No.1 and 2 and vide order dated 29.11.2024, the Executing Court has dismissed the same. being third party on the ground that he is lawful owner in possession of the demised premises as in family settlement, premises came to his share and further the decree is not executable against or a judgment debtor. Reply to the said objections was filed by contesting respondents No.1 and 2 and vide PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.03 17:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh CR-5761-2025 (O&M) impugned order dated 29.05.2025, the Executing Court dismissed the same. Hence, the revision petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner conte Court has dismissed the third party objections of the petitioner raised under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC without adhering to the procedure as envisaged under Order 21 Rule 101 CPC whereby all questions pertaining to the right, titl property arising between the parties to a proceeding on an application under Rule 97 or Rule 99 of Order 21 CPC are necessary to be determined by the Court dealing with the application and not in a separate suit. In support of his co he relies upon the judgment passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Sukhdev Singh Vs. Anita Rani and others 20.05.2025. Further reliance is placed upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in person, who is in possession of property and claims independent right as tenant, though was not a party to the suit for possession, such a person can resist the decree by seeking adjudication of hi the Executing Court has to adjudicate the objections finally under Rule 101. Such a party cannot be forced to file a fresh suit. 4. Heard. 5. Admittedly, the petitioner was not a party to the eviction procee before the learned Rent Controller but he was handed over possession of the tenanted premises by pendency of eviction proceedings itself. Till date, possession rests with him. Now the issue for determination before this Court is whether objections filed to execution of decree for possession by a third party, being 2025 (O&M) -3- impugned order dated 29.05.2025, the Executing Court dismissed the same. Hence, the revision petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner conte Court has dismissed the third party objections of the petitioner raised under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC without adhering to the procedure as envisaged under Order 21 Rule 101 CPC whereby all questions pertaining to the right, titl property arising between the parties to a proceeding on an application under Rule 97 or Rule 99 of Order 21 CPC are necessary to be determined by the Court dealing with the application and not in a separate suit. In support of his co he relies upon the judgment passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Sukhdev Singh Vs. Anita Rani and others 20.05.2025. Further reliance is placed upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shreenath Vs. Rajesh (1998) 4 SCC 543 person, who is in possession of property and claims independent right as tenant, though was not a party to the suit for possession, such a person can resist the decree by seeking adjudication of his objections under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC and the Executing Court has to adjudicate the objections finally under Rule 101. Such a party cannot be forced to file a fresh suit. Heard. Admittedly, the petitioner was not a party to the eviction procee e learned Rent Controller but he was handed over possession of the tenanted premises by the original tenant i.e. pendency of eviction proceedings itself. Till date, possession rests with him. Now or determination before this Court is whether objections filed to execution of decree for possession by a third party, being impugned order dated 29.05.2025, the Executing Court dismissed the same. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the learned Executing Court has dismissed the third party objections of the petitioner raised under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC without adhering to the procedure as envisaged under Order 21 Rule 101 CPC whereby all questions pertaining to the right, title and interest in the property arising between the parties to a proceeding on an application under Rule 97 or Rule 99 of Order 21 CPC are necessary to be determined by the Court dealing with the application and not in a separate suit. In support of his contention, he relies upon the judgment passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Sukhdev Singh Vs. Anita Rani and others passed in ESA-8-2024 decided on 20.05.2025. Further reliance is placed upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble eenath Vs. Rajesh (1998) 4 SCC 543 to contend that a third person, who is in possession of property and claims independent right as tenant, though was not a party to the suit for possession, such a person can resist the s objections under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC and the Executing Court has to adjudicate the objections finally under Rule 101. Such Admittedly, the petitioner was not a party to the eviction proceedings e learned Rent Controller but he was handed over possession of the the original tenant i.e. pro forma respondent during the pendency of eviction proceedings itself. Till date, possession rests with him. Now or determination before this Court is whether objections filed to execution of decree for possession by a third party, being taken over the possession impugned order dated 29.05.2025, the Executing Court dismissed the same. nds that the learned Executing Court has dismissed the third party objections of the petitioner raised under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC without adhering to the procedure as envisaged under Order 21 e and interest in the property arising between the parties to a proceeding on an application under Rule 97 or Rule 99 of Order 21 CPC are necessary to be determined by the Court ntention, he relies upon the judgment passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in 2024 decided on 20.05.2025. Further reliance is placed upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble to contend that a third person, who is in possession of property and claims independent right as tenant, though was not a party to the suit for possession, such a person can resist the s objections under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC and the Executing Court has to adjudicate the objections finally under Rule 101. Such dings e learned Rent Controller but he was handed over possession of the respondent during the pendency of eviction proceedings itself. Till date, possession rests with him. Now or determination before this Court is whether objections filed to over the possession PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.03 17:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh CR-5761-2025 (O&M) from the original tenant never been dispossessed fro whether the Executing Court was in error in not resorting 21 Rules 97 & 101 6. Before adverting to the aforesaid issues, it is apt to reproduce provisions of Order 21 CPC “Order 21 97. (1) Where the holder of a decree for the possession of property or the purchaser of any such property sold in execution of a decree is resisted or obstructed by any person in obtaining possession of the property, he may make an application to the Court complaining of such resistance or obstruction. (2) Where any application is made under sub proceed to adjudicate upon the application in accordance with t provisions herein contained. 98. questions referred to in such determination and subject to the provisions of sub (a) make an order allowing the application and directing that the applicant be put into the possession of the property or dismissing the applica (b) pass such other order as, in the circumstances of the case, it may deem fit. (2) Where, upon such determination, the Court is satisfied that the resistance or obstruction was occasioned without any just cause by the judgment his behalf, or by any transferee, where such transfe the pendency of the suit or execution proceeding, it shall direct that the applicant be put into possession of the property, and where the applicant is still resisted or obstructed in obtaining possession, the 2025 (O&M) -4- the original tenant during the pendency of eviction proceedings, who has never been dispossessed from tenanted premises the Executing Court was in error in not resorting & 101 CPC as contended by the petitioner Before adverting to the aforesaid issues, it is apt to reproduce Order 21 CPC, which deal with execution of decrees and orders Order 21 — Execution of decrees and orders 97. Resistance or obstruction to possession of immovable property (1) Where the holder of a decree for the possession of property or the purchaser of any such property sold in execution of a decree is resisted or obstructed by any person in obtaining possession of the property, he may make an application to the Court complaining of such resistance or obstruction. 2) Where any application is made under sub proceed to adjudicate upon the application in accordance with t provisions herein contained. 98. Orders after adjudication.—(1) Upon the determination of the questions referred to in Rule 101, the Court shall, in accordance with such determination and subject to the provisions of sub ) make an order allowing the application and directing that the applicant be put into the possession of the property or dismissing the application; or ) pass such other order as, in the circumstances of the case, it may deem fit. (2) Where, upon such determination, the Court is satisfied that the resistance or obstruction was occasioned without any just cause by the judgment-debtor or by some other person at his instigation or on his behalf, or by any transferee, where such transfe the pendency of the suit or execution proceeding, it shall direct that the applicant be put into possession of the property, and where the applicant is still resisted or obstructed in obtaining possession, the during the pendency of eviction proceedings, who has m tenanted premises, are maintainable or not and the Executing Court was in error in not resorting to the provisions of Order as contended by the petitioner? Before adverting to the aforesaid issues, it is apt to reproduce relevant , which deal with execution of decrees and orders:- Execution of decrees and orders Resistance or obstruction to possession of immovable property (1) Where the holder of a decree for the possession of immovable property or the purchaser of any such property sold in execution of a decree is resisted or obstructed by any person in obtaining possession of the property, he may make an application to the Court complaining 2) Where any application is made under sub-rule (1), the Court shall proceed to adjudicate upon the application in accordance with t (1) Upon the determination of the Rule 101, the Court shall, in accordance with such determination and subject to the provisions of sub-rule (2)— ) make an order allowing the application and directing that the applicant be put into the possession of the property or dismissing the ) pass such other order as, in the circumstances of the case, it may (2) Where, upon such determination, the Court is satisfied that the resistance or obstruction was occasioned without any just cause by debtor or by some other person at his instigation or on his behalf, or by any transferee, where such transfer was made during the pendency of the suit or execution proceeding, it shall direct that the applicant be put into possession of the property, and where the applicant is still resisted or obstructed in obtaining possession, the during the pendency of eviction proceedings, who has are maintainable or not and Order relevant Resistance or obstruction to possession of immovable property.— immovable property or the purchaser of any such property sold in execution of a decree is resisted or obstructed by any person in obtaining possession of the property, he may make an application to the Court complaining rule (1), the Court shall proceed to adjudicate upon the application in accordance with the (1) Upon the determination of the Rule 101, the Court shall, in accordance with ) make an order allowing the application and directing that the applicant be put into the possession of the property or dismissing the ) pass such other order as, in the circumstances of the case, it may (2) Where, upon such determination, the Court is satisfied that the resistance or obstruction was occasioned without any just cause by debtor or by some other person at his instigation or on r was made during the pendency of the suit or execution proceeding, it shall direct that the applicant be put into possession of the property, and where the applicant is still resisted or obstructed in obtaining possession, the PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.03 17:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh CR-5761-2025 (O&M) Court may also, at the insta debtor, or any person acting at his instigation or on his behalf, to be detained in the civil prison for a term which may extend to thirty days. 99. person property by the holder of a decree for the possession of such property or, where such property has been sold in execution of a decree, by the purchaser thereof, he may make an application to the C complaining of such dispossession. (2) Where any such application is made, the Court shall proceed to adjudicate upon the application in accordance with the provisions herein contained. 100. disposses Rule 101, the Court shall, in accordance with such determination (a) make an order allowing the application and directing that the applicant be put into the possession of the property or dismiss application; or (b) pass such other order as, in the circumstances of the case, it may deem fit. 101. relating to right, title or interest in the property) arising between the parties to their representatives, and relevant to the adjudication of the application, shall be determined by the Court dealing with the application, and not by a separate suit and for this purpose, the Cour shall, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law for the time being in force, be deemed to have jurisdiction to decide such questions. 102. Rules 98 and 100 shall appl of a decree for the possession of immovable property by a person to whom the judgment 2025 (O&M) -5- Court may also, at the instance of the applicant, order the judgment debtor, or any person acting at his instigation or on his behalf, to be detained in the civil prison for a term which may extend to thirty days. 99. Dispossession by decree-holder or purchaser person other than the judgment-debtor is dispossessed of immovable property by the holder of a decree for the possession of such property or, where such property has been sold in execution of a decree, by the purchaser thereof, he may make an application to the C complaining of such dispossession. (2) Where any such application is made, the Court shall proceed to adjudicate upon the application in accordance with the provisions herein contained. 100. Order to be passed upon application complaining of dispossession.—Upon the determination of the questions referred to in Rule 101, the Court shall, in accordance with such determination ) make an order allowing the application and directing that the applicant be put into the possession of the property or dismiss application; or ) pass such other order as, in the circumstances of the case, it may deem fit. 101. Question to be determined.— relating to right, title or interest in the property) arising between the parties to a proceeding on an application under Rule 97 or Rule 99 or their representatives, and relevant to the adjudication of the application, shall be determined by the Court dealing with the application, and not by a separate suit and for this purpose, the Cour shall, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law for the time being in force, be deemed to have jurisdiction to decide such questions. 102. Rules not applicable to transferee pendente lite Rules 98 and 100 shall apply to resistance or obstruction in execution of a decree for the possession of immovable property by a person to whom the judgment-debtor has transferred the property after the nce of the applicant, order the judgment debtor, or any person acting at his instigation or on his behalf, to be detained in the civil prison for a term which may extend to thirty days. holder or purchaser.—(1) Where any debtor is dispossessed of immovable property by the holder of a decree for the possession of such property or, where such property has been sold in execution of a decree, by the purchaser thereof, he may make an application to the C complaining of such dispossession. (2) Where any such application is made, the Court shall proceed to adjudicate upon the application in accordance with the provisions Order to be passed upon application complaining of Upon the determination of the questions referred to in Rule 101, the Court shall, in accordance with such determination— ) make an order allowing the application and directing that the applicant be put into the possession of the property or dismissing the ) pass such other order as, in the circumstances of the case, it may —All questions (including questions relating to right, title or interest in the property) arising between the a proceeding on an application under Rule 97 or Rule 99 or their representatives, and relevant to the adjudication of the application, shall be determined by the Court dealing with the application, and not by a separate suit and for this purpose, the Cour shall, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law for the time being in force, be deemed to have jurisdiction to Rules not applicable to transferee pendente lite.—Nothing in y to resistance or obstruction in execution of a decree for the possession of immovable property by a person to debtor has transferred the property after the nce of the applicant, order the judgment- debtor, or any person acting at his instigation or on his behalf, to be detained in the civil prison for a term which may extend to thirty days. (1) Where any debtor is dispossessed of immovable property by the holder of a decree for the possession of such property or, where such property has been sold in execution of a decree, by the purchaser thereof, he may make an application to the Court (2) Where any such application is made, the Court shall proceed to adjudicate upon the application in accordance with the provisions Order to be passed upon application complaining of Upon the determination of the questions referred to in — ) make an order allowing the application and directing that the ing the ) pass such other order as, in the circumstances of the case, it may All questions (including questions relating to right, title or interest in the property) arising between the a proceeding on an application under Rule 97 or Rule 99 or their representatives, and relevant to the adjudication of the application, shall be determined by the Court dealing with the application, and not by a separate suit and for this purpose, the Court shall, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law for the time being in force, be deemed to have jurisdiction to Nothing in y to resistance or obstruction in execution of a decree for the possession of immovable property by a person to debtor has transferred the property after the PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.03 17:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh CR-5761-2025 (O&M) institution of the suit in which the decree was passed or to the dispossession o Explanation of law.” 7. A when resistance or obstruction to possession of immovable property “any person” in “decree-holder” obstruction. On the other hand, Rule 99 of Order 21 “any person” other th decree for possession of such property or in case where such property is sold in furtherance of execution of a decree. The said provision vests “any person” with a right to make an application complaining about such disp property in the manner prescribed above proceedings. Meaning thereby, the application under Order 21 Rule 99 CPC is an independent application and filing of such application is not dependent pendency of any execution proceeding power of the Court to pass appropriate orders upon an application preferred under Rule 97 and Rule 99 respectively. jurisdiction on the Court as well as casts an obligation to determine the questions relating to right, title or interest in the property, if any, arising between parties on an application made by the person concerned under Rule 97 or Rule 99 in the same proceedings for adjudication and not in a separate suit. Lastly, Rule 102 clarifies that Rule 98 and Rule 100 shall not apply in a case where resistance or obstruction in execution of a decree for the possession of immovable property is offered by “transferee pendente 2025 (O&M) -6- institution of the suit in which the decree was passed or to the dispossession of any such person. Explanation.—In this rule, “transfer” includes a transfer by operation of law.” bare reading of provisions of Order 21 Rule 97 resistance or obstruction to possession of immovable property in obtaining possession of the property against the decree holder” has to make an application complaining about such resistance or obstruction. On the other hand, Rule 99 of Order 21 “any person” other than the judgment-debtor, decree for possession of such property or in case where such property is sold in furtherance of execution of a decree. The said provision vests “any person” with a right to make an application complaining about such disp property in the manner prescribed above, irrespective of pendency of any execution Meaning thereby, the application under Order 21 Rule 99 CPC is an independent application and filing of such application is not dependent pendency of any execution proceedings. Rule power of the Court to pass appropriate orders upon an application preferred under Rule 97 and Rule 99 respectively. In so far as Rule 101 is concerned, it confers on on the Court as well as casts an obligation to determine the questions relating to right, title or interest in the property, if any, arising between parties on an application made by the person concerned under Rule 97 or Rule 99 in the same for adjudication and not in a separate suit. Lastly, Rule 102 clarifies that Rule 98 and Rule 100 shall not apply in a case where resistance or obstruction in execution of a decree for the possession of immovable property is offered by “transferee pendente lite” i.e. the person to whom the property is transferred by the institution of the suit in which the decree was passed or to the In this rule, “transfer” includes a transfer by operation Order 21 Rule 97 CPC reveals that resistance or obstruction to possession of immovable property is made obtaining possession of the property against the decree-holder, to make an application complaining about such resistance or obstruction. On the other hand, Rule 99 of Order 21 CPC deals with the right of who is dispossessed by holder of a decree for possession of such property or in case where such property is sold in furtherance of execution of a decree. The said provision vests “any person” with a right to make an application complaining about such dispossession of immovable , irrespective of pendency of any execution Meaning thereby, the application under Order 21 Rule 99 CPC is an independent application and filing of such application is not dependent upon Rules 98 and Rule 100 deal with the power of the Court to pass appropriate orders upon an application preferred under far as Rule 101 is concerned, it confers on on the Court as well as casts an obligation to determine the questions relating to right, title or interest in the property, if any, arising between parties on an application made by the person concerned under Rule 97 or Rule 99 in the same for adjudication and not in a separate suit. Lastly, Rule 102 clarifies that Rule 98 and Rule 100 shall not apply in a case where resistance or obstruction in execution of a decree for the possession of immovable property is offered by lite” i.e. the person to whom the property is transferred by the institution of the suit in which the decree was passed or to the In this rule, “transfer” includes a transfer by operation reveals that is made by , the to make an application complaining about such resistance or deals with the right of who is dispossessed by holder of a decree for possession of such property or in case where such property is sold in furtherance of execution of a decree. The said provision vests “any person” with a ossession of immovable , irrespective of pendency of any execution Meaning thereby, the application under Order 21 Rule 99 CPC is an upon 98 and Rule 100 deal with the power of the Court to pass appropriate orders upon an application preferred under far as Rule 101 is concerned, it confers on on the Court as well as casts an obligation to determine the questions relating to right, title or interest in the property, if any, arising between parties on an application made by the person concerned under Rule 97 or Rule 99 in the same for adjudication and not in a separate suit. Lastly, Rule 102 clarifies that Rule 98 and Rule 100 shall not apply in a case where resistance or obstruction in execution of a decree for the possession of immovable property is offered by lite” i.e. the person to whom the property is transferred by the PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.03 17:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh CR-5761-2025 (O&M) judgment-debtor after institution of the suit in which the decree sought to be executed was passed. 8. Under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC, entitled to make an “any person”. Admittedly, the is that he obtained possession from the tenant during the pendency of eviction proceedings before the learned be owner of the property as per alleged family settlement. raised by learned counsel for the resorted to provisions of Order 21 Rule 9 dismissing the objections filed by the petitioner vide impugned order dated 29.05.2025 has no merit. The judgment relied petitioner in the case of of the present case, as in the said case, specific performance of the agreement to sell against judgement debtor. In the execution petition, third party objections were filed by one Anita, mother of judgment debtor, claiming that the judgment debtor was not the owner of the property. However, the execution petition filed by the decree while entertaining the objections filed by the third party and, therefore, it was the decree-holder, who was complaining that were not adhered to. It was in this eventuality, it was held by a Coordinate Bench of this Court that Further the judgment reli distinguishable on facts, as in the said case, the third party, who resisted the execution of decree was tenant even before the mortgage was made by the 2025 (O&M) -7- debtor after institution of the suit in which the decree sought to be executed was passed. Under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC, it is only the “decree entitled to make an application where he is offered resistance or obstruction by Admittedly, the petitioner is not the decree holder. Rather, his claim is that he obtained possession from the tenant during the pendency of eviction proceedings before the learned Rent Controller and further he proclaims himself to be owner of the property as per alleged family settlement. raised by learned counsel for the petitioner resorted to provisions of Order 21 Rule 97 read with Rule 101 CPC while dismissing the objections filed by the petitioner vide impugned order dated 29.05.2025 has no merit. The judgment relied in the case of Sukhdev Singh’s case of the present case, as in the said case, appellant therein was a decree specific performance of the agreement to sell against judgement debtor. In the execution petition, third party objections were filed by one Anita, mother of judgment debtor, claiming that the judgment debtor was not the owner of the property. However, the execution petition filed by the decree while entertaining the objections filed by the third party and, therefore, it was the er, who was complaining that provisions were not adhered to. It was in this eventuality, it was held by a Coordinate Bench of this Court that third party objections are requi Further the judgment relied upon in the case of distinguishable on facts, as in the said case, the third party, who resisted the execution of decree was tenant even before the mortgage was made by the debtor after institution of the suit in which the decree sought to be it is only the “decree-holder” who is application where he is offered resistance or obstruction by is not the decree holder. Rather, his claim is that he obtained possession from the tenant during the pendency of eviction Rent Controller and further he proclaims himself to be owner of the property as per alleged family settlement. Therefore, the argument that the Executing Court has not 7 read with Rule 101 CPC while dismissing the objections filed by the petitioner vide impugned order dated 29.05.2025 has no merit. The judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the case (supra) is not applicable to the facts appellant therein was a decree-holder for specific performance of the agreement to sell against judgement debtor. In the execution petition, third party objections were filed by one Anita, mother of judgment debtor, claiming that the judgment debtor was not the owner of the property. However, the execution petition filed by the decree-holder was dismissed while entertaining the objections filed by the third party and, therefore, it was the provisions of Order 21 Rule 101 CPC were not adhered to. It was in this eventuality, it was held by a Coordinate Bench third party objections are required to be decided like a suit. ed upon in the case of Shreenath (supra) is distinguishable on facts, as in the said case, the third party, who resisted the execution of decree was tenant even before the mortgage was made by the debtor after institution of the suit in which the decree sought to be holder” who is application where he is offered resistance or obstruction by is not the decree holder. Rather, his claim is that he obtained possession from the tenant during the pendency of eviction Rent Controller and further he proclaims himself to Therefore, the argument that the Executing Court has not 7 read with Rule 101 CPC while dismissing the objections filed by the petitioner vide impugned order dated by learned counsel for the to the facts holder for specific performance of the agreement to sell against judgement debtor. In the execution petition, third party objections were filed by one Anita, mother of judgment debtor, claiming that the judgment debtor was not the owner of the holder was dismissed while entertaining the objections filed by the third party and, therefore, it was the of Order 21 Rule 101 CPC were not adhered to. It was in this eventuality, it was held by a Coordinate Bench red to be decided like a suit. (supra) is distinguishable on facts, as in the said case, the third party, who resisted the execution of decree was tenant even before the mortgage was made by the PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.03 17:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh CR-5761-2025 (O&M) mortgagor and mortgagee and, therefore, it was asserted tha possession can be given to the decree holder. Meaning thereby, they were not deriving any right and title through the judgment debtor, as it was a case of redemption of mortgage. tenant/judgment debtor in the eviction proceedings had tenant and landlord and petitioner during the pendency of aforesaid eviction a statement in this r believe that the proceedings. 9. In the judgment passed by the Housing Finance and Investment Charitable Trust (2022) 15 SCC 176 property on expiry of damage/mesne profits and mandatory injunction was f owner bequeathed the suit property to a Trust by Will, admitted by legal heirs and thus, Trust became a co was decreed in favour of plaintiffs, however, one of the legal heirs t disputed suit property to a third party Supreme Court) during pendency of execution petition. The said company even took possession directly from the judgment debtor and subsequently, filed an application raising objection to execution petition. Dealing with the said issue which is similar to the controversy in hand under:- “ “ “ “ observed that under Rule 97, i 2025 (O&M) -8- mortgagor and mortgagee and, therefore, it was asserted tha possession can be given to the decree holder. Meaning thereby, they were not deriving any right and title through the judgment debtor, as it was a case of redemption of mortgage. However, in the present case, firstly, the original judgment debtor in the eviction proceedings had tenant and landlord and secondly, the tenant handed over possession to the petitioner during the pendency of aforesaid eviction a statement in this regard before the learned Rent Controller, thus, it is hard to believe that the petitioner-third party was not aware of the pendency of eviction In the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Housing Finance and Investment India Limited Vs. Omesh Mishra Memorial Charitable Trust (2022) 15 SCC 176 where the tenant failed to vacate the suit property on expiry of lease period, a suit for possession/recovery of arrears of rent/ damage/mesne profits and mandatory injunction was f owner bequeathed the suit property to a Trust by Will, admitted by legal heirs and thus, Trust became a co in favour of plaintiffs, however, one of the legal heirs t disputed suit property to a third party-company (appellant before the Supreme Court) during pendency of execution petition. The said company even took possession directly from the judgment debtor and subsequently, filed an aising objection to execution petition. Dealing with the said issue which is similar to the controversy in hand, the “ “ “ “24. On conjoint reading of the aforesaid provisions, it can be observed that under Rule 97, it is only the “decree mortgagor and mortgagee and, therefore, it was asserted that only symbolic possession can be given to the decree holder. Meaning thereby, they were not deriving any right and title through the judgment debtor, as it was a case of However, in the present case, firstly, the original judgment debtor in the eviction proceedings had admitted the relationship of , the tenant handed over possession to the petitioner during the pendency of aforesaid eviction proceedings and duly suffered egard before the learned Rent Controller, thus, it is hard to third party was not aware of the pendency of eviction Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sriram India Limited Vs. Omesh Mishra Memorial where the tenant failed to vacate the suit period, a suit for possession/recovery of arrears of rent/ damage/mesne profits and mandatory injunction was filed by the owner. The owner bequeathed the suit property to a Trust by Will, validity of which was admitted by legal heirs and thus, Trust became a co-plaintiff in the suit. The suit in favour of plaintiffs, however, one of the legal heirs transferred company (appellant before the Hon’ble Supreme Court) during pendency of execution petition. The said company even took possession directly from the judgment debtor and subsequently, filed an aising objection to execution petition. Dealing with the said issue , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as On conjoint reading of the aforesaid provisions, it can be t is only the “decree-holder” who is t only symbolic possession can be given to the decree holder. Meaning thereby, they were not deriving any right and title through the judgment debtor, as it was a case of However, in the present case, firstly, the original the relationship of , the tenant handed over possession to the and duly suffered egard before the learned Rent Controller, thus, it is hard to third party was not aware of the pendency of eviction Sriram India Limited Vs. Omesh Mishra Memorial where the tenant failed to vacate the suit period, a suit for possession/recovery of arrears of rent/ iled by the owner. The validity of which was plaintiff in the suit. The suit ransferred Hon’ble Supreme Court) during pendency of execution petition. The said company even took possession directly from the judgment debtor and subsequently, filed an aising objection to execution petition. Dealing with the said issue, Supreme Court has held as On conjoint reading of the aforesaid provisions, it can be holder” who is PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.03 17:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh CR-5761-2025 (O&M) entitled to make an application in case where he is offered resistance or obstruction by “any person”. In the present case, as admitted by the appellant itself, it is a bona fide purchaser of the property and not the “d record, it is the respondent Trust along with legal heirs of late N.D. Mishra Therefore, it is obvious that the appellant cannot take shelter of Rule 97 as stated above to raise objections against execution of decree passed in favour of the respondent. making a complaint to the Court against “dispossession” of the immovable property by the person in “possession” of the prop the holder of a decree or purchaser thereof. 25. property from Mr has been in vacant and physical possession of the property si Had it been the case that the appellant was dispossessed by the respondent Trust in execution of decree dated 2 would have been well within the ambit of Rule 99 to make an application seeking appropriate relief to be put bac On the contrary, the appellant in the instant case was never dispossessed from the property in question and till date, as contended and unrefuted, the possession of same rests with the appellant. Considering the aforesaid, the appellant ca to make an application under Rule 99 raising objections in execution proceedings since he has never been dispossessed as required under Rule 99. 26. are subject to Rule 101 which provides for determination of questions relating to disputes as to right, title or interest in the property arising between the parties to the proceedings or their r application made under Rule 97 or Rule 99. Effectively, the said Rule does away with the requirement of filing of fresh suit for adjudication of disputes as mentioned above. Rule 101 has no applicabil 2025 (O&M) -9- entitled to make an application in case where he is offered resistance or obstruction by “any person”. In the present case, as admitted by the appellant itself, it is a bona fide purchaser of the property and not the “decree-holder”. As available from the material placed on record, it is the respondent Trust along with legal heirs of late N.D. Mishra, who are the decree-holders and not the appellant. Therefore, it is obvious that the appellant cannot take shelter of Rule 97 as stated above to raise objections against execution of decree passed in favour of the respondent. making a complaint to the Court against “dispossession” of the immovable property by the person in “possession” of the prop the holder of a decree or purchaser thereof. 25. It is factually not in dispute that the appellant purchased the said property from Mr. Yogesh Mishra vide sale deed dated 12 has been in vacant and physical possession of the property si Had it been the case that the appellant was dispossessed by the respondent Trust in execution of decree dated 2 would have been well within the ambit of Rule 99 to make an application seeking appropriate relief to be put bac On the contrary, the appellant in the instant case was never dispossessed from the property in question and till date, as contended and unrefuted, the possession of same rests with the appellant. Considering the aforesaid, the appellant ca to make an application under Rule 99 raising objections in execution proceedings since he has never been dispossessed as required under Rule 99. 26. Now, as stated above, applications under Rule 97 and Rule 99 are subject to Rule 101 which provides for determination of questions relating to disputes as to right, title or interest in the property arising between the parties to the proceedings or their r application made under Rule 97 or Rule 99. Effectively, the said Rule does away with the requirement of filing of fresh suit for adjudication of disputes as mentioned above. Now, in the present case, Order 21 Rule 101 has no applicability as the appellant is neither entitled to entitled to make an application in case where he is offered resistance or obstruction by “any person”. In the present case, as admitted by the appellant itself, it is a bona fide purchaser of the property and holder”. As available from the material placed on record, it is the respondent Trust along with legal heirs of late N.D. holders and not the appellant. Therefore, it is obvious that the appellant cannot take shelter of Rule 97 as stated above to raise objections against execution of decree passed in favour of the respondent. Further, Rule 99 pertains to making a complaint to the Court against “dispossession” of the immovable property by the person in “possession” of the property by the holder of a decree or purchaser thereof. It is factually not in dispute that the appellant purchased the said Yogesh Mishra vide sale deed dated 12-4-2004 and has been in vacant and physical possession of the property since then. Had it been the case that the appellant was dispossessed by the respondent Trust in execution of decree dated 2-9-2003, the appellant would have been well within the ambit of Rule 99 to make an application seeking appropriate relief to be put back in possession. On the contrary, the appellant in the instant case was never dispossessed from the property in question and till date, as contended and unrefuted, the possession of same rests with the appellant. Considering the aforesaid, the appellant cannot be said to be entitled to make an application under Rule 99 raising objections in execution proceedings since he has never been dispossessed as required under Now, as stated above, applications under Rule 97 and Rule 99 are subject to Rule 101 which provides for determination of questions relating to disputes as to right, title or interest in the property arising between the parties to the proceedings or their representatives on an application made under Rule 97 or Rule 99. Effectively, the said Rule does away with the requirement of filing of fresh suit for adjudication Now, in the present case, Order 21 ity as the appellant is neither entitled to entitled to make an application in case where he is offered resistance or obstruction by “any person”. In the present case, as admitted by the appellant itself, it is a bona fide purchaser of the property and holder”. As available from the material placed on record, it is the respondent Trust along with legal heirs of late N.D. holders and not the appellant. Therefore, it is obvious that the appellant cannot take shelter of Rule 97 as stated above to raise objections against execution of decree Further, Rule 99 pertains to making a complaint to the Court against “dispossession” of the erty by It is factually not in dispute that the appellant purchased the said 2004 and nce then. Had it been the case that the appellant was dispossessed by the 2003, the appellant would have been well within the ambit of Rule 99 to make an k in possession. On the contrary, the appellant in the instant case was never dispossessed from the property in question and till date, as contended and unrefuted, the possession of same rests with the appellant. nnot be said to be entitled to make an application under Rule 99 raising objections in execution proceedings since he has never been dispossessed as required under Now, as stated above, applications under Rule 97 and Rule 99 are subject to Rule 101 which provides for determination of questions relating to disputes as to right, title or interest in the property arising epresentatives on an application made under Rule 97 or Rule 99. Effectively, the said Rule does away with the requirement of filing of fresh suit for adjudication Now, in the present case, Order 21 ity as the appellant is neither entitled to PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.03 17:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh CR-5761-2025 (O&M) make an application under Rule 97 nor Rule 99 for the reasons stated above. raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. 27. frame issues and give direction to parties to lead evidence on objections raised by the appellant. By doing so, the executing court transgressed the scope of Order 21 Rule 97 and Rule 99. Therefore, in our considered view, the the trial court entertaining the objections filed by the appellant under Order 21 Rule 97 to Rule 102. 10. There is no dispute that “any person” even including th derivative title from the judgment hors the judgment the power under Rule 35(3) has been empowered to conduct an enquiry whether the obstruction by that person in obtaining possession of immovable property was legal or not. How to make an application against third parties to have his obstruction removed and an enquiry thereon could be done the instance of third pa an application for removal of the obstruction or resistance application, all questions (including questions relating to right, title or interest in the property) arising between the Rule 97 CPC, shall be determined by the Court dealing with the application. such an eventuality the order passed under Order 21 2025 (O&M) -10- make an application under Rule 97 nor Rule 99 for the reasons stated above. Accordingly, we find no substance in the argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. 27. In such circumstances, the execut frame issues and give direction to parties to lead evidence on objections raised by the appellant. By doing so, the executing court transgressed the scope of Order 21 Rule 97 and Rule 99. Therefore, in our considered view, the High Court has rightly set aside the order of the trial court entertaining the objections filed by the appellant under Order 21 Rule 97 to Rule 102.” There is no dispute that Order 21, Rule 97 CPC clearly envisages that “any person” even including the judgment-debtor derivative title from the judgment-debtor or set up his own right, title or interest the judgment-debtor resists execution of a decree, then the court in addition to the power under Rule 35(3) has been empowered to conduct an enquiry whether the obstruction by that person in obtaining possession of immovable property was However, it is the decree-holder, who to make an application against third parties to have his obstruction removed and an enquiry thereon could be done, meaning thereby, such the instance of third party furnishes a cause of action to the decree an application for removal of the obstruction or resistance application, all questions (including questions relating to right, title or interest in the property) arising between the parties to a proceeding on an Rule 97 CPC, shall be determined by the Court dealing with the application. such an eventuality, after hearing the decree passed by the Court would be treated as Rule 101 CPC and no separate suit would lie against make an application under Rule 97 nor Rule 99 for the reasons Accordingly, we find no substance in the argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. In such circumstances, the executing court had no occasion to frame issues and give direction to parties to lead evidence on objections raised by the appellant. By doing so, the executing court transgressed the scope of Order 21 Rule 97 and Rule 99. Therefore, in High Court has rightly set aside the order of the trial court entertaining the objections filed by the appellant under Order 21, Rule 97 CPC clearly envisages that debtor, irrespective whether he claims debtor or set up his own right, title or interest debtor resists execution of a decree, then the court in addition to the power under Rule 35(3) has been empowered to conduct an enquiry whether the obstruction by that person in obtaining possession of immovable property was , who gets a right under Rule 97 CPC to make an application against third parties to have his obstruction removed and an , meaning thereby, such obstruction or resistance furnishes a cause of action to the decree-holder to make an application for removal of the obstruction or resistance and upon such application, all questions (including questions relating to right, title or interest in parties to a proceeding on an application under Rule 97 CPC, shall be determined by the Court dealing with the application. after hearing the decree-holder and the obstructionist would be treated as a decree and no separate suit would lie against make an application under Rule 97 nor Rule 99 for the reasons Accordingly, we find no substance in the argument ing court had no occasion to frame issues and give direction to parties to lead evidence on objections raised by the appellant. By doing so, the executing court transgressed the scope of Order 21 Rule 97 and Rule 99. Therefore, in High Court has rightly set aside the order of the trial court entertaining the objections filed by the appellant under Order 21, Rule 97 CPC clearly envisages that irrespective whether he claims debtor or set up his own right, title or interest de debtor resists execution of a decree, then the court in addition to the power under Rule 35(3) has been empowered to conduct an enquiry whether the obstruction by that person in obtaining possession of immovable property was CPC to make an application against third parties to have his obstruction removed and an obstruction or resistance at holder to make and upon such application, all questions (including questions relating to right, title or interest in under Rule 97 CPC, shall be determined by the Court dealing with the application. In holder and the obstructionist, a decree and no separate suit would lie against PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.03 17:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh CR-5761-2025 (O&M) such order, meaning thereby the appropriate 11. As an upshot of above, this Court is of the considered opinion that once resistance is offered by a p noted by the decree available only to the decree consequent thereto, other party objections are filed, it is not mandatory to lead evidence in every case and the Executing Court has to decide the same on Court can make the adjudication on admitted facts or even on the averments made by the resistor evidence for such determination. judgment debtor were already dismissed by the Executing Court and thereafter, third party objections wer in question came to shows that no such family settlement was attached therewith and in the absence of any documentary proof qua the s that third party objections were filed just to delay the execution proceedings. 12. In view of the above, this Court does not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order dated 29.05.2025 passed by Resultantly, the instant petition stands dismissed. 13. Pending misc. application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. August 25, 2025 Pankaj* 2025 (O&M) -11- meaning thereby, the only remedy would be to prefer an appeal before the appropriate Appellate Court against such deemed decree. As an upshot of above, this Court is of the considered opinion that nce resistance is offered by a purported stranger to the decree, noted by the decree-holder, the remedy under Order 21, Rule 97, sub available only to the decree-holder against such an obstructionist consequent thereto, other provisions are bound to follow. party objections are filed, it is not mandatory to lead evidence in every case and the Executing Court has to decide the same on a Court can make the adjudication on admitted facts or even on the averments made and only if it deems necessary, evidence for such determination. The objections filed by the original tenant judgment debtor were already dismissed by the Executing Court and thereafter, third party objections were filed by the petitioner in question came to his share in a family settlement shows that no such family settlement was attached therewith and in the absence of any documentary proof qua the same, the learned Executing Court has rightly held third party objections were filed just to delay the execution proceedings. In view of the above, this Court does not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order dated 29.05.2025 passed by Resultantly, the instant petition stands dismissed. Pending misc. application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL , 2025 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable the only remedy would be to prefer an appeal before against such deemed decree. As an upshot of above, this Court is of the considered opinion that urported stranger to the decree, which comes to be holder, the remedy under Order 21, Rule 97, sub-rule (1) holder against such an obstructionist and as a are bound to follow. Furthermore, where thir party objections are filed, it is not mandatory to lead evidence in every case and the a case to case basis. The Executing Court can make the adjudication on admitted facts or even on the averments made if it deems necessary, can direct the parties to adduce The objections filed by the original tenant judgment debtor were already dismissed by the Executing Court and thereafter, petitioner by merely asserting that the shop family settlement. A perusal of the objections shows that no such family settlement was attached therewith and in the absence of ame, the learned Executing Court has rightly held third party objections were filed just to delay the execution proceedings. In view of the above, this Court does not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order dated 29.05.2025 passed by the learned Executing Court. Resultantly, the instant petition stands dismissed. Pending misc. application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No : Yes/No the only remedy would be to prefer an appeal before As an upshot of above, this Court is of the considered opinion that which comes to be rule (1) is and as a Furthermore, where third party objections are filed, it is not mandatory to lead evidence in every case and the Executing Court can make the adjudication on admitted facts or even on the averments made can direct the parties to adduce The objections filed by the original tenant- judgment debtor were already dismissed by the Executing Court and thereafter, that the shop . A perusal of the objections shows that no such family settlement was attached therewith and in the absence of ame, the learned Executing Court has rightly held In view of the above, this Court does not find any ground to interfere the learned Executing Court. AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL) PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.03 17:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh