The Allahabad High Court has clarified that a revisional court cannot step into the shoes of an executing court and reject an application under Order 21 Rule 97 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) while it is still pending before the executing court.
Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal made this clear while allowing a petition filed by Smt. Santosh Awasthi, setting aside an order by the revisional court that had dismissed her application under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC.
Read Also: Once Goods Are Verified in MOV-04, Revenue Can't Shift Its Stand Later: Allahabad High Court
“In case the revision was entertained... and had found that the issue of res judicata was to be adjudicated first, it should have remanded the matter to the executing court... The revisional court should not have exceeded its jurisdiction.” — Allahabad High Court
Background of the Case:
Malti Devi sold a large tract of land to Roop Chand Jain, who later sold Plot 767 to Sushila Kumari. Urmila Jain, another buyer from Malti Devi, filed a permanent injunction suit in 1991 (Suit No. 33/1991) concerning Plots 776 and 771. Around the same time, Ram Narayan (Sushila’s husband) filed a correction deed, changing Plot 767 to 776, and filed another injunction suit (Suit No. 151/1991).
Read Also: JEE Main Re-Exam Denied: Allahabad High Court Rejects Plea Citing Traffic Jam Delay
Urmila Jain’s suit was decreed in 2003, while Ram Narayan’s suit was dismissed. The appeal against the dismissal failed in 2010. Meanwhile, Ram Narayan sold the property to Santosh Awasthi in 2001—during the pendency of the suits.
- 2010: Urmila Jain initiated execution proceedings.
- 2011–2013: Santosh Awasthi’s impleadment attempts were rejected multiple times.
- 2010–2022: Awasthi’s new suit (Suit No. 341/2010) was dismissed; no appeal filed.
- 2014: Awasthi filed an application under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC.
- 2024: Executing court framed an issue of res judicata but postponed its decision.
- Aug 2024: Revisional court rejected Awasthi’s application.
- Mar 2025: High Court intervened, remanding the matter.
Read Also: Allahabad High Court Slams Habit of Seeking Adjournments: Calls Litigants’ Role in Delays a “Menace”
- Jurisdiction Issue: The revisional court wrongly exercised the powers of an executing court. It should have only remanded the matter if it believed that res judicata needed to be addressed first.
- Doctrine of Lis Pendens (Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act): Since Awasthi purchased the property during the pendency of litigation, the transaction was hit by lis pendens. The rights of the decree holder override the transferee’s claims.
“The law is settled… once it is admitted that the property was purchased during pendency of the suit, such transfer is hit by Section 52… The executing court should not have dragged the matter for 10 years.” — Allahabad High Court
- Rule 102 of Order 21 CPC: The court emphasized that Rule 102 bars applications under Rule 97 by transferees pendente lite. Awasthi had no legal basis to file the application under these provisions.
- Delay in Execution Proceedings: Citing the Supreme Court's direction in Rahul S. Shah and Periyammal v. V. Rajamani, the High Court noted the urgent need to dispose of execution proceedings within six months.
“The executing court must dispose of the execution proceedings within six months… which may be extended only by recording reasons in writing.” — Supreme Court in Periyammal
- The High Court set aside both:
- The revisional court’s order dated 05.08.2024, and
- The executing court’s order dated 16.05.2024.
- The matter was remanded back to the executing court with instructions to decide the Order 21 Rule 97 application in accordance with law and apex court rulings within one month.
“The matter is remanded... keeping in mind the decisions of the Supreme Court... and the doctrine of lis pendens.” — Allahabad High Court
Case Title: Smt. Santosh Awasthi v. Smt. Urmila Jain [MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 11807 of 2024]
