Uttarakhand High Court
Roshni Devi And Another vs Shri Amit Kumar on 12 February, 2026
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
SL.
Date or directions COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No
and Registrar's
order with
Signatures
SA No.11 of 2026
Hon'ble Siddhartha Sah, J.
Mr. Rajeshwar Singh, Advocate (through V.C.) holding brief of Mr. Vikas Bahuguna, Advocate for the appellant.
2. Mr. Shankar Aggarwal and Mr. Ashish Aggarwal (through V.C.), Advocates for respondent no.2.
3. By means of the present second appeal, the appellant has assailed the judgment and decree dated 19.11.2025 passed by the Additional District Judge, Vikasnagar, District Dehradun in Civil Appeal No.24 of 2025, Smt. Roshni Devi and another vs. Shri Amit Kumar Sharma and another, whereby, the Civil Appeal was allowed and the judgment and order dated 20.08.2025 passed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Vikas Nagar, District Dehradun in Miscellaneous Case No.19 of 2024, Smt. Roshni Devi and another vs. Shri Amit Kumar Sharma and another, was set aside and the decree passed in Original Suit No.139 of 2018 was cancelled as well as the sale deed executed by the court in favour of the appellant was cancelled.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant has taken the Court through the entire facts and he has made the submissions that the respondent no.3 entered into an agreement to sell dated 13.04.2017. The suit for specific performance was instituted on 18.12.2018. The suit was decreed and subsequently, the sale deed was executed on 29.11.2023 by the Civil Court. Thereafter, the respondent no.3 filed an application for setting aside the decree, which was rejected on 12.04.2022. Thereafter, an execution was filed for getting the possession. In the execution proceedings, the respondent nos.1 and 2 filed an application under Order 21 Rule 97, 98 and 101 of Code of Civil Procedure before the Executing Court on the premise that the respondent no.3 had sold the property to them and since they were not a party to the suit, the decree cannot be executed against them. The Executing Court after due consideration of the entire facts and circumstances and due opportunity of hearing to the parties rejected the application under Order 21 Rule 97, 98 and 101 of CPC vide the judgment and order dated 20.08.2025.
6. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order dated 20.08.2025 passed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Vikas Nagar, District Dehradun, an appeal was preferred by Smt. Roshni Devi and Smt. Sunita Nautiyal, which was registered as Civil Appeal No.24 of 2025, Smt. Roshni Devi and another vs. Shri Amit Kumar Sharma and another, in the court of Additional District Judge, Vikas Nagar, District Dehradun.
7. Vide judgment and order dated 19.11.2025, the Appellate Court has allowed the appeal whereby inter alia it has set aside the judgment/order dated 3.4.2019 passed in Original Suit No.139 of 2018 as also set aside the proceedings of Miscellaneous Execution Case No.19 of 2024.
8. On an entire conspectus of the case and after going through the 1st Appellate Court's judgment, the substantial question of law which arises for consideration of this Court is that "Whether a Court can set aside a decree while adjudicating an application under Order 21 Rule 97, 98 and 101 of CPC"?
9. The instant second appeal is admitted on the aforesaid question of law.
10. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, an interim order is called for.
11. Till the next date of listing, it is provided that no third party interest shall be created qua the property in question.
12. Issue notice to respondent nos.1 and 2. Steps to be taken within three days.
13. Summon the Trial Court Record.
14. List this case on 12.03.2026.
[ (Siddhartha Sah, J.) 12.02.2026 Ravi