Court emphasizes balance between decree-holder's rights and fair hearing to objector, orders three-month timeline for adjudication under Order 21, Rule 97 CPC
In a significant ruling delivered on October 28, 2026, the Allahabad High Court, presided over by Justice Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava, issued directions for the expeditious disposal of pending execution proceedings related to an eviction decree against Punjab National Bank. The case arose from a civil suit filed by the late Smt. Nirmala Devi for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent concerning premises at A-38, Saket, Meerut.
The eviction decree was originally passed on August 27, 2012, directing the bank to hand over possession of the premises. Although the bank vacated the premises on July 14, 2025, and deposited the keys with the executing court on April 1, 2026, possession has not been delivered to the decree-holder due to an objection filed by the Meerut Sahkari Awas Samiti Limited (the Society) under Order 21, Rule 97 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC). The objection proceedings had caused significant delays.
The petitioner, who became entitled to the decree after the death of Smt. Nirmala Devi, invoked the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution, seeking a time-bound direction for disposal of the Society's objection and subsequent consideration of the application for release of keys and delivery of possession.
The Court clarified that its intervention was limited to procedural directions to prevent undue delay and did not adjudicate the merits or maintainability of the objection or the competing rights of the parties. It held that while the executing court must afford a fair hearing to the objector, the decree-holder's right to the fruits of the decree cannot be indefinitely postponed.
The Court noted the prior rejection of the Society's application for impleadment in the original suit but emphasized that the executing court must independently examine the legal effect of that order and the applicability of doctrines such as res judicata or constructive res judicata in the context of the objection.
Referring to the Supreme Court's judgment in Rahul S. Shah v. Jinendra Kumar Gandhi (2021) 6 SCC 418, the High Court underscored the need to prevent avoidable procedural delays and ensure timely enforcement of decrees.
Accordingly, the Court directed the Additional District Judge, Court No.18, Meerut, to decide the objection under Order 21, Rule 97 CPC preferably within three months from the date of production of a certified copy of the order. After disposing of the objection, the executing court must consider the petitioner's application for release of keys and delivery of possession promptly.
The Court further clarified that no opinion was expressed on the merits or maintainability of the objection or on the substantive rights of the parties. The directions aim to ensure procedural fairness while safeguarding the decree-holder's rights.
The petition was disposed of with no order as to costs, and the Court called for cooperation from all parties to facilitate expeditious disposal of the execution proceedings.
Bottom Line:
Article 227 - Execution proceedings - Eviction decree - High Court can issue time-bound direction for expeditious disposal of objection under Order 21, Rule 97 CPC and consequential application for release of keys and delivery of possession, without adjudicating merits of objection or rights of parties.
Statutory provision(s):
Article 227, Constitution of India; Order 21, Rule 97, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
