[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jitender Aggarwal vs Hari Chand And Others on 19 December, 2025
CR-9620-2025 [1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CR-9620-2025
Date of decision: 19.12.2025
Jitender Aggarwal ...Pe oner
Versus
Hari Chand and others ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA
Present: Ms. Ritu Pathak (Legal Aid Counsel)
for the pe))oner.
****
DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL)
The pe))oner is the decree holder in Execu)on Case No. CIS-
Exe-470-2017 )tled "Jitender v. Hari Chand and others", pending before the
learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gurugram. He has invoked the
revisional jurisdic)on of this Court assailing the order dated 30.08.2025,
whereby his applica)on seeking dismissal of objec)ons filed by
respondents No.2 to 10 was dismissed by the Execu)ng Court.
2. Briefly stated, the pe))oner--Jitender Aggarwal--had filed an
evic)on pe))on under Sec)on 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent
and Evic)on) Act, 1973, seeking ejectment of respondent No.1--Hari
Chand, from the demised premises. The tenant was proceeded ex-parte
and, upon considera)on of ex-parte evidence, an evic)on order came to be
passed on 25.08.2017. ThereaDer, the pe))oner ini)ated execu)on
proceedings for enforcement of the said evic)on order.
3. During execu)on, several persons, namely respondents No.2 to
10 herein, filed independent objec)ons resis)ng delivery of possession. The
pe))oner moved an applica)on contending that such objec)ons were not
maintainable and were barred by Sec)on 47(3) read with Explana)on II of
1 of 4
CR-9620-2025 [2]
the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, as the objectors were neither par)es to
the evic)on proceedings nor could be permiEed to obstruct execu)on
under the garb of third-party claims. The Execu)ng Court, however,
dismissed the said applica)on, leading to the present revision.
4. The objec)ons filed by Ajay and Vijay Pal (respondents No.7
and 8) disclose a detailed chain of )tle, asser)ng that the property in
ques)on was purchased in an open auc)on by Ram Singh and Ra) Ram in
execu)on of a decree against Gumani Ram and Udmi Ram, who were
predecessors of the decree holder. It is alleged that this material fact was
deliberately concealed by the pe))oner while seeking evic)on. Subsequent
transfers culmina)ng in ownership claims of the objectors were also
pleaded.
5. Similar objec)ons were raised by Rajeev Jain (respondent
No.3), who traced his )tle through Ram Chander and Sumer Chand.
Respondents No.2 and 9 claimed rights through their grandmother, who
allegedly purchased the property from Ram Kishan, son of Banarsi Dass,
one of the par)es to the original suit. Respondents No.4 and 10 claimed
deriva)ve rights through subsequent transfers. All objectors alleged that
the evic)on order had been obtained by suppressing material facts and by
playing fraud upon the Court.
6. Per contra, the decree holder argued that the objec)ons were
a mala fide aEempt to delay execu)on and that, in view of Sec)on 47(3)
CPC and Explana)on II thereto, such objec)ons were barred and liable to be
rejected at the threshold.
7. The Execu)ng Court, aDer considering the rival submissions,
held that the objectors were asser)ng independent rights in the suit
property and were not claiming through the judgment-debtor. It was
2 of 4
CR-9620-2025 [3]
further held that their objec)ons were squarely covered under Order XXI
Rules 97 to 101 CPC. Since issues had already been framed and evidence
had been led by the objectors, the applica)on seeking dismissal of
objec)ons was found to be devoid of merit.
8. Upon careful considera)on, this Court finds no infirmity in the
approach adopted by the Execu)ng Court. Sec)on 47 CPC is confined to
ques)ons arising between the par)es to the suit or their representa)ves
and rela)ng to execu)on, discharge or sa)sfac)on of the decree.
Explana)on II merely clarifies that a transferee pendente lite is deemed to
be a representa)ve of a party. However, it does not exclude adjudica)on of
claims raised by strangers asser)ng independent )tle.
9. The scheme of Order XXI Rules 97 to 101 CPC, par)cularly aDer
the 1976 amendment, confers wide jurisdic)on upon the Execu)ng Court to
adjudicate all ques)ons of right, )tle and interest raised by third par)es
resis)ng execu)on. Rule 101 expressly bars a separate suit and mandates
that such ques)ons "shall be determined by the Court dealing with the
applica)on."
10. The legal posi)on is no longer res integra. In Brahmdeo
Chaudhary v. Rishikesh Prasad Jaiswal and another, (1997) 3 SCC 694, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court held that a third party claiming independent rights
in the property is en)tled to resist execu)on and seek adjudica)on under
Order XXI Rule 97 CPC. Similarly, in Silverline Forum Pvt. Ltd. v. Rajiv Trust
and another, (1998) 3 SCC 723, it was held that the Execu)ng Court is
competent to decide all disputes rela)ng to right, )tle and interest of a
third party and that such adjudica)on aEains finality.
11. Again, in Ashan Devi and another v. Phulwasi Devi and others,
(2003) 12 SCC 219, the Supreme Court reiterated that once resistance is
3 of 4
CR-9620-2025 [4]
offered by a person claiming independent rights, the Execu)ng Court must
adjudicate the same comprehensively under Order XXI Rules 97 to 101 CPC,
and the decree holder cannot bypass such adjudica)on by seeking
summary rejec)on of objec)ons.
12. In the present case, the objectors are not claiming under the
judgment-debtor nor are they raising ques)ons rela)ng to discharge or
sa)sfac)on of the evic)on decree. They assert independent rights based on
an alleged auc)on purchase and subsequent transfers. Such claims
necessarily require adjudica)on on evidence and cannot be shut out by
invoking Sec)on 47 CPC.
13. In view of the seEled legal posi)on, the Execu)ng Court has
rightly held that it possesses exclusive jurisdic)on to adjudicate the
objec)ons and their dismissal thereof at a preliminary stage would defeat
the statutory scheme of Order XXI Rules 97 to 101 CPC.
14. Consequently, this Court does not find any illegality,
jurisdic)onal error or perversity in the impugned order dated 30.08.2025
warran)ng interference in exercise of revisional jurisdic)on.
15. The present revision pe))on, being devoid of merit, is
accordingly dismissed.
19.12.2025 (DEEPAK GUPTA)
Yogesh JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No
Whether reportable:- Yes/No
4 of 4
