The Supreme Court of India has ruled that an application filed under Section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) concerning the execution of a decree will be treated as an application under Order 21 Rule 97 if it raises issues related to right, title, or interest in a property. This landmark decision aims to streamline execution proceedings and prevent unnecessary litigation.

The bench, comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Pankaj Mithal, reviewed a case where respondents filed an application under Section 47 CPC after a decree had been passed, claiming bona fide tenancy rights to prevent dispossession. The Court observed that while Section 47 deals with execution matters and Order 21 Rule 97 focuses on resistance to possession, an application under Section 47 should be reclassified under Rule 97 if it challenges property rights. This ensures that executing courts have the authority to decide such matters under Order 21 Rule 101.

“In cases where an application under Section 47 CPC raises objections concerning property rights, it should be treated as one under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC. This allows the executing court to adjudicate such issues effectively.” – Supreme Court

Read Also:- Supreme Court Orders States to Consider Premature Release of Convicts Without Applications

Case Background: Periyammal (Dead) Through LRs vs. V. Rajamani & Anr.

The case involved a property dispute where the respondents claimed tenancy rights after a decree was passed. They filed an application under Section 47 CPC, objecting to their dispossession. The Supreme Court ruled that since the application raised questions of possession and ownership, it should be treated as an application under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC, eliminating the need for a separate suit.

Impact of the Judgment

Clarity in Execution Proceedings: This ruling ensures that disputes concerning property rights in execution cases can be resolved within the same proceeding, reducing delays.

Read Also:- Supreme Court Grants Bail in Chhattisgarh Liquor Scam, But Delays Release Until April 10

Prevention of Collusive Objections: The judgment prevents parties from raising objections under Section 47 CPC solely to delay the execution of a valid decree.

Empowering Executing Courts: By adjudicating property rights under Order 21 Rule 101, executing courts now have the authority to settle such disputes effectively.

The Supreme Court also emphasized the need for swift disposal of execution petitions. It directed High Courts to ensure that all execution petitions are resolved within six months. Further, presiding officers will be held accountable if they fail to meet this timeline.

“Justice delayed in execution proceedings defeats the very purpose of obtaining a decree. Courts must ensure that execution cases are resolved swiftly.” – Supreme Court

Case Details: PERIYAMMAL (DEAD THR. LRS.) AND ORS Versus V. RAJAMANI AND ANR. ETC|SLP(C) No. 8490-8492/2020