Recently, the Delhi High Court dismissed a petition filed under Order XXI Rule 99 of the CPC by the wife of a judgment-debtor, challenging the execution proceedings arising from a property dispute. The Court observed that the remedy under Order XXI Rule 99 CPC is available only to a third party dispossessed in execution and not to a judgment-debtor or his close proxy. It further remarked that “what cannot be done directly cannot be permitted to be done indirectly".
Brief Facts:
The litigation arose from a suit filed by the decree-holder, claiming ownership and possession of a property in Qutub Vihar, New Delhi. The defendant, despite being served, failed to contest the matter, resulting in a decree in favour of the plaintiff. The defendant’s appeal was dismissed, and his second appeal remains pending.
Subsequently, the wife of the judgment-debtor filed objections under Order XXI Rule 99 CPC, alleging that the decree had been obtained fraudulently through a land-grabbing syndicate and that she was the victim of forged documents. She also instituted a separate civil suit seeking to declare the property transfer documents void on the ground of fraud.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The petitioner’s counsel argued that the executing court wrongly dismissed her objections as premature and relied upon the precedent in Brahmdeo Chaudhary v. Rishikesh Prasad Jaiswal, contending that her application ought to have been considered even if she remained in possession.
Contentions of the Respondent:
On the other hand, counsel for the decree-holder relied on Periyammal (Dead) through LRs v. V. Rajamani and Silverline Forum Pvt. Ltd. v. Rajiv Trust, submitting that such objections can be raised only after actual dispossession and that the petitioner was, in reality, representing the judgment-debtor himself.
Observations of the Court:
The Court emphasized that Order XXI Rule 99 CPC is designed to protect third parties who are dispossessed during execution, and not judgment-debtors seeking to delay the process. It noted, “Manifestly, the objection application is, for all purposes, at the behest of her husband only… what cannot be done directly cannot be permitted to be done indirectly".
The Court also took note that the petitioner had herself executed the property documents years earlier and chose to challenge them belatedly by filing a separate civil suit. It observed that the objections under execution were a clear attempt to prolong litigation despite the decree-holder’s valid title and possession rights.
The decisions of the Court:
Concluding that there was no merit in the objection petition, the High Court dismissed the petition while clarifying that its observations would not prejudice the outcome of the separate civil suit pending before the Trial Court. The Court reiterated that the objective of execution proceedings is to avoid unnecessary multiplicity of litigation and to ensure that valid decrees are not frustrated through indirect challenges.
Case Title: Leelawati vs. Rajiv Kumar
Case No.: CM(M) 1274/2025 & CM APPL. 42605-42606/2025
Coram: Justice Manoj Jain
Advocate for Petitioner: Adv. Krishna Chandra Dubey, Ashok Kr. Singh, Abhishek Agarwal, Uma Tarafdar
Advocate for Respondent: Adv. Akil Rataeeya, Movish Lohia
Picture Source :
