(Prayer: This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the order of rejection dated 22.09.2025 passed in E.A.SR.No.62887 of 2025 in E.P.No.954 of 2025 pending on the file of X Assitant City Civil Court at Chennai.)

1. The revision petitioner, aggrieved by the dismissal of the application under Order XXI Rule 97 C.P.C, even at the stage of maintainability, has come forward with the present revision petition.

2. I have heard Mr.A.K.Sriram, learned Senior Counsel, for Mr.K.S.Arivazhagan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.K.V.Ananthakrushnan, learned counsel for the respondent.

3. The learned Senior Counsel, Mr.A.K.Sriram would firstly contend that the Executing Court has fell in error in going into the merits of the application and rejecting the contentions of the petitioner without even numbering the application under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC, which is contrary to the directions issued by this Court in Selvaraj v. Koodankulam Nuclear Power Plant India Limited is cited as (2021) 4 CTC 539. The learned Senior Counsel would further state that the suit for specific performance was filed before this Court in C.S.No.845 of 2006 in respect of an agreement of sale dated 21.12.2005 in favour of the respondent herein. The said suit was subsequently transferred to City Civil Court on account of enhancement of pecuniary jurisdiction and numbered as O.S. No.12610 of 2010. Pending the suit, the revision petitioner claimed to have purchased the property on 17.10.2008 and sought to implead himself and also to set aside the decree passed in the suit for specific performance on 21.02.2011. The application for impleading the revision petitioner was dismissed in I.A.No. 1 of 2021. However, Mr.A.K.Sriram, learned Senior counsel, fairly conceded that the challenge to the same not only before this Court but also of the Hon'ble Supreme Court was unsuccessful.

4. As regards the dismissal of the setting aside application, it is contended by Mr.A.K.Sriram, learned Senior Counsel that a C.M.A is filed and the same is pending. The learned Senior Counsel would also state that sale deed has been executed in favor of the respondent in E.P.No. 3081 of 2011 and thereafter, the respondents has filed E.P. 954 of 2025 for recovery of possession. It is therefore the contention of learned Senior Counsel, Mr.A.K.Sriram, that mere fact that an Application for impleadment of the revision petitioner has been dismissed, it will not take away his legitimate right to obstruct the decree passed in the Execution Proceedings, invoking Order XXI Rule 97 C.P.C.

5. Inviting my attention to the scope of enquiry under Order XXI Rule 97 C.P.C, Mr.A.K.Sriram, learned counsel states that the Executing Court ought not to have dismissed the application as not maintainable, especially after going into the merits of the contentions of the petitioner and instead ought to have numbered the application and decided the same in accordance with the provisions of the Court, after giving an opportunity to the respondents/decree holders as well.

6. The learned Senior Counsel would also rely on the recent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tahir V. Isani vs Madan Waman Chodankar (Since Deceased) now through his LRs and others, reported in 2025 INSC 1044. The learned Senior Counsel would further state that the scope of enquiry under Order I Rule 10 C.P.C for impleading a proper and necessary party is different from what is contemplated under Order XXI Rule 97 C.P.C. Therefore, according to the learned Senior Counsel, the dismissal of the impleading application and the same having become final up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court, cannot come in the way of the revision petitioner to obstruct the Execution Proceedings. The learned Senior Counsel would therefore pray for the revision being allowed and the Executing Court be directed to number the Order XXI Rule 97 application and in spite of the same, all merits in accordance with law.

7. Per contra, Mr.K.V.Ananthakrushnan, learned counsel for the respondents/decree holders would first and foremost contend that the revision petitioner is admittedly a pendente lite purchaser from the judgement debtor. The suit for specific performance in favour of the respondent was decreed and an attempt was made by the revision petitioner to not only get himself impleaded, but also to set aside the decree. He states that as conceded by Mr.A.K.Sriram, learned Senior Counsel, the impleading application was dismissed and the order has attained finality.

8. With regard to the setting aside application, the same was also dismissed, no doubt the appeal as against the same is pending before the First Appellate Court. The learned counsel for the respondent would further state that the impleading and setting aside applications were filed as if the petitioner never knew about the Court proceedings initiated by the respondent which were proved to be false statements and even before the sale deed was executed by the Court, the petitioner attempted to stall the execution of the decree by filing a Section 47 application. The same was also dismissed.

9. In this regard, Mr.K.V.Ananthakrushnan, would point out to the fact that the Section 47 application was filed by the petitioner as can be seen from the cause title. However, the petition was signed by the judgement debtor not by the revision petitioner, which clearly explains the collusion between the petitioner and the judgement debtor. He would therefore state that the petitioner has been set up by the judgement debtor alone, to protract the proceedings.

10. The learned counsel, Mr.K.V.Ananthakrushnan would further point out to the prayer sought for in the Section 47 application and contend that such a prayer as framed is not maintainable in law and it does not amount to an obstruction application to the decree which is promotion put to execution. It is therefore, the contention of the learned counsel that having enjoyed the property from 2008, without paying a penny, the petitioner is only attempting to delay and defeat the inevitabile. The learned counsel prays for dismissal of the petition.

11. I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel on both sides.

12. The respondent had institued a Civil Suit for specifically performing an agreement of sale dated 21.10.2005. The said suit came to be decreed on 21.02.2011. Thereafter, the respondents as decree holders, filed E.P. No.3081 of 2011, for execution of sale deed. It is an admitted fact that the sale deed came to be executed in favor of the respondents in the said Execution Proceedings. Thereafter, the revision petitioner, as third party, sought to implead himself as the ninth defendant in the suit proceedings in I.A. No.1 of 2021. He also sought to set aside the ex-parte decree in I.A. No.2 of 2021, besides seeking stay of the Execution Proceedings pending E.P. No.23 of 2018. The Applications filed by the revision petitioner in and by common order dated 24.03.2022, came to be dismissed by the Trial Court.

13. It is an admitted position that as against the impleading application, the petitioner filed a revision before this Court and same has been dismissed and even the Special Leave Petition as against the order of this Court in revision was also dismissed. Insofar as dismissal of the setting aside Application under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC, the petitioner has filed a CMA and said appeal is pending. In this backdrop, it has to be seen whether the dismissal of the Application under Order XXI, Rule 97 CPC without even numbering the application, at the stage of maintainability, is a sustainable order or not.

14. It is contended on behalf of the revision petitioner that the Executing Court ought not to have discussed the merits of the claims made in the Application under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC, while deciding maintainability. In this regard, decision of this Court in Selvaraj's case (referred herein supra), is also strongly relied on. Decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tahir V. Isani's case (reffered herein supra), is also relied on. No doubt, this Court in Selvaraj's case has held that at the stage of numbering applications, the Court should not conduct any roving inquiry. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tahir V. Isani's case, held that the petition cannot be summarily decided and the bar of Rule 102 of Order XXI. With regard to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, on facts, I find that the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that as the appellant was not claiming title under the judgment debtor and he was also not a transferee pendente lite, but a bonafide buyer, who traced title to a third party to the decree, held that the bar of Order XXI Rule 102 cannot be put against the appellant and the appellant was entitled to raise his objections before the Executing Court, under Rule 97 and 102 of the CPC. The above decision will not come to the rescue of the revision petitioner for the simple reason, in the present case, the revision petitioner admittedly is a pendente lite purchaser, having purchased the property his vendor also having purchased the property only after the institution of the suit for specific performance on 06.12.2006.

15. In this backdrop, the order of the Executing Court has to be tested. No doubt, this Court has issued elaborate directions to the Trial Courts, insofar as numbering of suits and applications, scope of enquiry at that stage etc. There is no problem with regard to the said proposition laid down by this Court. At the same time, in my considered opinion two factors determine the fate of the maintainability of the petitioner's application. Firstly, the prayer sought for in the Order XXI, Rule 97 CPC application and secondly, the petitioner does not intend to obstruct the execution of the decree but is only making a claim for money to be paid to him. Though Order XXI, Rule 97 CPC is couched in a manner entitling the holder of a decree for possession of immovable property, or a purchaser of such property sold in execution of the decree, to make an application to the Court complaining of such resistance or obstruction, by series of subsequent decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, as well as this Court, it is now settled law that it is not necessary that the person who intends to obstruct or resist the execution of the decree has to wait for the decree holder to take out an application under Order XXI, Rule 97 CPC or move the executing court under Order XXI, Rule 99 CPC, after being dispossessed.

16. It is now open to an obstructor or a resister to directly move the Executing Court invoking Order XXI, Rule 97 CPC and place his objections. From the prayer sought for in the application filed under Order XXI, Rule 97 CPC, as can be seen above, there is no resistance or obstruction for possession of the immovable property being delivered to the decree holder in the Execution Petition. Therefore, on the very ground that the application especially, the relief sought for is framed, the petition for removal of obstruction petition under Order XXI, Rule 97 CPC is not maintainable.

17. The petitioner admittedly does not claim any independent right, title or interest to the property. He is a purchaser pendente lite from a purchaser who also acquired the property after the institution of suit for specific performance. Therefore the bar under Order 21, Rule 102 CPC would apply in full force to the facts of the present case and consequently, the petitioner who claims only under judgment debtor seek adjudication of his rights under Order XXI, Rule 97 of CPC. Thereby the application under Order XXI, Rule 97 CPC is clearly not maintainable.

18. Even otherwise, the another factor that comes in the way of the petitioner maintaining his application is that Section 47 application was filed by the petitioner in I.A.No.2 of 2022 as a third party. However, the petition has been verified and signed by the judgment debtor and not the revision petitioner. I see force and merit in the submissions of Mr.K.V.Ananthakrushnan, learned counsel that there is an apparent collusion between the petitioner and the judgment debtor. Be that as it may, when the petitioner's application under Section 47 of the CPC, technically filed by the petitioner (as the application carries only his name) has been dismissed by the Trial Court and the very same objections having been raised in the subsequent application, there is a clear bar on the petition to reagitate the same issues. The Executing Court has also rendered a clear finding that the petitioner is a lis pendens purchaser and is bound by the decree and the petition under Order XXI, Rule 97 CPC is clearly barred. Therefore viewed from any angle, the application under Order XXI, Rule 97 CPC is not maintainable. The order of the Executing Court, therefore, does not warrant any interference in this revision.

19. In fine, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is also closed. No costs.