Mohd. Irfaan and others Brajesh Kumar Saxena and another v. Court No

Judgment

1. Civil Revision No. 53 of 2025: Mohd. Irfaan and others Brajesh Kumar Saxena and another Versus Court No. - 6 HON'BLE JASPREET SINGH, J.

Heard Sri Arvind Razdan learned counsel for the revisionists and Sri Brajesh Kumar Saxena-respondent no.1 who has appeared in person and submits that he would argue the matter himself. As far as the respondent no.2 is concerned, she is wife of the respondent no.1 and he submits that he has the authority to appear on her behalf as well. The issue involved in the instant two revisions is identical and between the same parties, hence both the revisions are being considered together. The core issue involved in the instant revision is regarding the applicability of Article 129 appended with the Limitation Act, 1963. The contention of learned counsel for the revisionists is that in an execution case seeking to execute the decree of eviction dated 06.05.2009 passed against Ramgopal in the SCC Revision no.52 of 2025 and a like decree of the same day against Sri Bacha Kanaujia which is the subject matter of the connected Revision no.53 of 2025, the revisionists in both the revisions had filed an application under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC which have been rejected on the ground of limitation by invoking Article 129 of the Limitation Act,

1963. 2 CLRE No. 52 of 2025 It is urged that the present revisionists in both the revisions are having independent rights in the property and none of the rights are claimed through judgment debtor. It is urged that when the Ameen reached the site for executing the decree, the revisionists in both the revision having independent rights, made resistance to the execution of the decree and also moved an application before the Court concerned under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC. It is urged that the Court concerned without entering into the merits barely invoked the provisions of Article 129 of the Limitation Act and rejected the application under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC. Submission is that as far as the provision of Order 21 Rule 97 CPC is concerned, there is no limitation provided therein. Article 129 of the Limitation Act operates in a different sphere and can only be referable to a decree holder for seeking possession, however, it cannot be extended to a case where an independent person has made obstruction to execution of a decree. It is thus urged that the Article 129 of the Limitation Act was not applicable and, therefore, non suiting the revisionists on the ground of limitation vide impugned order is per se illegal and suffers from a jurisdictional error. Sri Brajesh Kumar Saxena-respondent no.1 appearing in person submits that there are discrepancies in the documents, which is the basis of right claimed by the revisionists and it would indicate that it is per se against the averments made in the instant petition by the revisionists. He further urged that though the decree was passed in the year, 2009 and while the same was put into execution, merely by moving an application under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC which according to the respondent was not maintainable yet the proceedings before executing court were stalled. It has further been urged that the revisionists are intentionally creating unnecessary obstructions for a due execution of a decree and the respondent being a decree holder is being put to unnecessary harassment. It is in the aforesaid circumstances, it is stated by the respondent that the revision should be dismissed. A specific query was put to the respondent whether he wishes to file any response to which he has declined and he further stated that the revision may be disposed of finally at this stage itself. In view of the statement given by the respondent the Court has proceeded to decide the two revisions by the common order. 3 CLRE No. 52 of 2025 Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the revisionists and the respondent no.1 himself, the core issue that needs consideration is whether the court concerned was justified in rejecting the application under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC on the ground of limitation by invoking provisions of Article 129 appended to the Schedule annexed to the Limitation Act. At the outset, it will relevant to notice the provisions of Order 21 Rule 97 CPC which reads as under: "97. Resistance or obstruction to possession of immovable property. -(1) Where the holder of a decree for the possession of immovable property or the purchaser of any such property sold in execution of a decree is resisted or obstructed by any person in obtaining possession of the property, he may make an application to the Court complaining of such resistance or obstruction. [(2) Where any application is made under sub-rule (1), the Court shall proceed to adjudicate upon the application in accordance with the provisions herein contained.]" The aforesaid provision does not provide for any limitation. It is in this backdrop, if Article 129 of the Limitation Act is seen which is reproduced hereinafter :

129. For possession after removing resistance or obstruction to delivery of possession of immovable property decreed or sold in execution of a decree. Thirty days. The resistance obstruction. It would reveal that Article 129 is applicable where in an execution proceedings, if an application is moved for seeking possession after removal of the obstruction, then a limitation period of three years is provided. The application for possession, after removal of obstruction, which is mentioned in Article 129 is apparently, not applicable to the instant case. Order 21 Rule 97 CPC, gives a right to a person independent from any right of a judgment debtor to resist a decree which may not be applicable or enforceable against such independent person. The issue as to whether the defence or the contention of the revisionists as mentioned in his application under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC is a subject matter to be considered and decided by the court concerned after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties. However, Article 129 cannot be imported to non suit a person who seeks to obstruct a decree in terms of Order 21 Rule 97 CPC. In this view of the matter, this Court is of the clear view that the impugned orders 4 CLRE No. 52 of 2025 dated 07.07.2025 passed by the A.D.J Court no.6, Lucknow in Misc Case no.02 of 2011 as well as in Case No.17 of 2012 cannot be sustained and is, accordingly, set aside. The parties shall appear before the court concerned on 11.12.2025 and the Court seized of the matter in terms of Order 21 Rule 97 CPC shall after affording full opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned shall take up the matter on weekly basis to ensure that the matter be decided preferably within a period of two months from the date when the parties ie 11.12.2025. In case, if any party chooses to delay the proceedings or make unnecessary adjournments or misuse the liberty, it will be open for the Court concerned to pass appropriate orders including imposing realistic cost as noticed by the Apex Court in Vinod Seth v. Devinder Bajaj; (2010) 8 SCC 1. The revision is allowed in the aforesaid terms. There shall be no order as to costs. December 3, 2025 Harshita. (Jaspreet Singh,J.) HARSHITA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Heard Sri Arvind Razdan learned counsel for the revisionists and Sri Brajesh Kumar Saxena-respondent no.1 who has appeared in person and submits that he would argue the matter himself. As far as the respondent no.2 is concerned, she is wife of the respondent no.1 and he submits that he has the authority to appear on her behalf as well. The issue involved in the instant two revisions is identical and between the same parties, hence both the revisions are being considered together. The core issue involved in the instant revision is regarding the applicability of Article 129 appended with the Limitation Act, 1963. The contention of learned counsel for the revisionists is that in an execution case seeking to execute the decree of eviction dated 06.05.2009 passed against Ramgopal in the SCC Revision no.52 of 2025 and a like decree of the same day against Sri Bacha Kanaujia which is the subject matter of the connected Revision no.53 of 2025, the revisionists in both the revisions had filed an application under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC which have been rejected on the ground of limitation by invoking Article 129 of the Limitation Act,

1963. 2 CLRE No. 52 of 2025 It is urged that the present revisionists in both the revisions are having independent rights in the property and none of the rights are claimed through judgment debtor. It is urged that when the Ameen reached the site for executing the decree, the revisionists in both the revision having independent rights, made resistance to the execution of the decree and also moved an application before the Court concerned under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC. It is urged that the Court concerned without entering into the merits barely invoked the provisions of Article 129 of the Limitation Act and rejected the application under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC. Submission is that as far as the provision of Order 21 Rule 97 CPC is concerned, there is no limitation provided therein. Article 129 of the Limitation Act operates in a different sphere and can only be referable to a decree holder for seeking possession, however, it cannot be extended to a case where an independent person has made obstruction to execution of a decree. It is thus urged that the Article 129 of the Limitation Act was not applicable and, therefore, non suiting the revisionists on the ground of limitation vide impugned order is per se illegal and suffers from a jurisdictional error. Sri Brajesh Kumar Saxena-respondent no.1 appearing in person submits that there are discrepancies in the documents, which is the basis of right claimed by the revisionists and it would indicate that it is per se against the averments made in the instant petition by the revisionists. He further urged that though the decree was passed in the year, 2009 and while the same was put into execution, merely by moving an application under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC which according to the respondent was not maintainable yet the proceedings before executing court were stalled. It has further been urged that the revisionists are intentionally creating unnecessary obstructions for a due execution of a decree and the respondent being a decree holder is being put to unnecessary harassment. It is in the aforesaid circumstances, it is stated by the respondent that the revision should be dismissed. A specific query was put to the respondent whether he wishes to file any response to which he has declined and he further stated that the revision may be disposed of finally at this stage itself. In view of the statement given by the respondent the Court has proceeded to decide the two revisions by the common order. 3 CLRE No. 52 of 2025 Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the revisionists and the respondent no.1 himself, the core issue that needs consideration is whether the court concerned was justified in rejecting the application under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC on the ground of limitation by invoking provisions of Article 129 appended to the Schedule annexed to the Limitation Act. At the outset, it will relevant to notice the provisions of Order 21 Rule 97 CPC which reads as under: "97. Resistance or obstruction to possession of immovable property. -(1) Where the holder of a decree for the possession of immovable property or the purchaser of any such property sold in execution of a decree is resisted or obstructed by any person in obtaining possession of the property, he may make an application to the Court complaining of such resistance or obstruction. [(2) Where any application is made under sub-rule (1), the Court shall proceed to adjudicate upon the application in accordance with the provisions herein contained.]" The aforesaid provision does not provide for any limitation. It is in this backdrop, if Article 129 of the Limitation Act is seen which is reproduced hereinafter :

129. For possession after removing resistance or obstruction to delivery of possession of immovable property decreed or sold in execution of a decree. Thirty days. The resistance obstruction. It would reveal that Article 129 is applicable where in an execution proceedings, if an application is moved for seeking possession after removal of the obstruction, then a limitation period of three years is provided. The application for possession, after removal of obstruction, which is mentioned in Article 129 is apparently, not applicable to the instant case. Order 21 Rule 97 CPC, gives a right to a person independent from any right of a judgment debtor to resist a decree which may not be applicable or enforceable against such independent person. The issue as to whether the defence or the contention of the revisionists as mentioned in his application under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC is a subject matter to be considered and decided by the court concerned after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties. However, Article 129 cannot be imported to non suit a person who seeks to obstruct a decree in terms of Order 21 Rule 97 CPC. In this view of the matter, this Court is of the clear view that the impugned orders 4 CLRE No. 52 of 2025 dated 07.07.2025 passed by the A.D.J Court no.6, Lucknow in Misc Case no.02 of 2011 as well as in Case No.17 of 2012 cannot be sustained and is, accordingly, set aside. The parties shall appear before the court concerned on 11.12.2025 and the Court seized of the matter in terms of Order 21 Rule 97 CPC shall after affording full opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned shall take up the matter on weekly basis to ensure that the matter be decided preferably within a period of two months from the date when the parties ie 11.12.2025. In case, if any party chooses to delay the proceedings or make unnecessary adjournments or misuse the liberty, it will be open for the Court concerned to pass appropriate orders including imposing realistic cost as noticed by the Apex Court in Vinod Seth v. Devinder Bajaj; (2010) 8 SCC 1. The revision is allowed in the aforesaid terms. There shall be no order as to costs. December 3, 2025 Harshita. (Jaspreet Singh,J.) HARSHITA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench