[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rajendra Bhusari vs Vinod Kumar on 10 March, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:6384
1 MP-6170-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI
ON THE 10 th OF MARCH, 2026
MISC. PETITION No. 6170 of 2025
RAJENDRA BHUSARI
Versus
VINOD KUMAR AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Ramesh Sonvane - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Vishal Baheti - Senior Advocate with Shri Satyajeet Mane- Advocate
for respondent no.1.
ORDER
This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been
preferred against the impugned order dated 19.09.2025, Annexure P-8 whereby an
application under Order 21 Rule 97 of CPC filed on behalf of the petitioner has
been dismissed.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per provisions of
Order 21 Rules 97, 98 and 101 of CPC, the objections filed on behalf of the
petitioner should have been decided by affording an opportunity of adducing
evidence, but the application to that effect has been dismissed without cogent
reasons. The order passed by the Court below is bad in law. Hence, prays for
allowing this petition by setting aside the impugned order. To buttress his
submissions he has relied on para 5.1 of the judgment of the Apex Court in the
case of Bangalore Development Authority Vs. N.Nanjappa and another AIR 2022
SC 81 .
3. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that original owner of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:6384
2 MP-6170-2025
house no.01, Dubey Colony, Indore was Sampatbai and after her death the
property devolved on Sishir Dubey and Sharad Dubey. Sampatbai during her life
time has inducted so many persons as tenants and Hakamsingh was one of them.
Even the second appeal filed on behalf of the tenants has been dismissed. The
objections raised in this petition were already raised and decided in the second
appeal. He further submits that it is not obligatory on the part of the Court to
conduct enquiry and by giving opportunity to lead evidence in every case. He
further submits that this petition has been filed just to frustrate the decree passed
in favour of the respondent and prays for dismissal of the petition.
4. Heard and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the
parties and perused the record and the impugned order.
5. The learned trial Court has mentioned in the impugned order that the
decree holder has put in execution of decree dated 30.06.2012 where against the
first appeal and the second appeal have been dismissed. The decree holder is to be
given possession of the disputed property. For the execution of the decree,
recording of evidence is not necessary. On these grounds, the application was
dismissed.
6. In the case of Chandra Kumar Chandwani and others Vs. Anil Gupta
ILR 2017 MP 1701 the Court has held that when decree holder complains of
resistance to the execution, the executing Court can decide whether the question
raised by the Objector or resistor legally arises between the parties. If the answer is
negative, there is no need to determine the question. Similarly, the executing
Court can also decide whether the Objector or resistor is bound by the decree and
refuses to obey it. This determination does not always require for the recording of
evidence and the Court can decide it on the basis of admissions. Same view has
been taken in the case of Jamuna Prasad Vs. Balkishan and others reported in
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:6384
3 MP-6170-2025
2014 (IV) MPJR SN 19 also.
7. In the light of the aforesaid, in the instant case, where decree sought to
be executed has been upheld even upto the second appeal, this Court is of the view
that for deciding the objections raised by the Objector under Order 21 Rule 97 to
Rule 101 of CPC, evidence is not required to be recorded in each and every case
unless and until Court itself finds it necessary. In the considered opinion of this
Court, in the factual matrix of this case, the learned Court below has not
committed any error in dismissing the application for recording of evidence to
decide the objections under Order 21 Rules 97, 98 and 101 of CPC.
8. The judgment relied upon by the petitioner in the case of Bangalore
Development Authority (Supra) only holds that the application filed under Order
21 Rule 97 or Rule 99 of CPC to be adjudicate by the Court dealing with the
application, and for that a separate suit is not required to be filed. The point
involved in the aforesaid case is clearly not involved in the instant case. Hence,
the judgment is of no rescue to the petitioner.
9 . Accordingly, this petition, being devoid of any substance, fails and is
hereby dismissed.
(BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI)
JUDGE
RJ
