When a decree for possession is passed, the litigation enters the critical stage of execution. Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) contains the statutory mechanism for enforcing such decrees and for dealing with as well as raising resistance or obstruction, particularly through Rules 97 to 103.

Section 47 CPC works in tandem with Order XXI. It provides that all questions relating to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of a decree must be determined by the executing Court itself. This creates a single, self-contained forum for resolving execution related disputes and ensures that parties are not driven to initiate fresh litigation.

Within this framework, Order XXI Rule 35 enables delivery of possession of immovable property and authorizes removal of any person bound by the decree. Where a person not bound by the decree is in possession, Rule 36 permits symbolic delivery of possession.

Rules 97 to 103 specifically address resistance or obstruction in execution. Rule 97 allows the decree-holder or auction purchaser to file an application if they face obstruction from any person during execution. Rule 98 empowers the Court to summon the objector and determine the legitimacy of the resistance. If a person who was not a party to the decree has been wrongfully dispossessed or fears a likelihood of dispossession, Rule 99 enables them to seek restoration of possession or prevent dispossession, as the case may be.

It is pertinent to note that Rule 101 mandates that all questions regarding right, title or interest in the property raised in such proceedings must be determined by the executing Court itself, and not by a separate suit. Rule 103 then provides that these determinations are treated as decrees and are therefore appealable. The reason behind this is to ensure that a successful decree holder is not subjected to further rounds of litigation at the stage of execution, and any obstructionist also has a fair opportunity to make out his case if facing dispossession.

Read together, Rules 97 to 103 of Order XXI constitute a complete and self-contained code for adjudicating all disputes arising out of resistance to a decree for possession.

The Supreme Court has consistently affirmed this position, including in the following decisions:

• Brahmdeo Chaudhary v. Rishikesh Prasad Jaiswal, 1997 (3) SCC 694: The Court held that once an application is filed under Rule 97, the executing Court must adjudicate it and cannot bypass the procedure. The scheme of Rules 97 to 103 was described as a ‘complete code’ intended to ensure finality in execution without relegating parties to fresh suits.
• Shreenath and Another v. Rajesh & Ors., 1998 (4) SCC 543: In this case, the Supreme Court clarified that the words ‘any person’ in Rule 97 include tenants and other third parties not bound by the decree. It held that such persons can object to delivery of possession without waiting to be evicted and that their rights must be adjudicated within the execution proceeding itself.
• N.S.S. Narayana Sarma and Others v. Goldstone Exports (P) Ltd. & Ors., 2002 (1) SCC 662: This decision reaffirmed that third parties, including strangers and even the judgment-debtor, may raise objections under Rule 97. The Court stressed that the executing Court is under a statutory obligation to decide all questions of right, title or interest in the property and that no separate suit is maintainable.
• Babu Lal v. Raj Kumar & Ors., (1997) 3 SCC 154: The Court held that Rule 97 applications need not wait until after dispossession. A person claiming an independent right to the property may file a Rule 97 application at the stage of resistance and demand adjudication. The judgment emphasized that the adjudication must take place within execution, not outside it.
• Periyammal (Dead) through LRs v. V. Rajamani, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 507: In this recent decision, the Supreme Court reiterated that Order XXI Rules 97 to 103 are a complete code for resolving disputes related to execution of possession decrees. The Court held that once a party claims a right to resist delivery of possession, the executing Court is bound to conduct an inquiry and adjudicate the issue. The Court also clarified that objections under Section 47 CPC, when they relate to possession or title, are to be treated as falling within the Rule 97 framework.

What Decree-Holders and Objectors Must Know?

For decree-holders, the key practical step when faced with resistance is to file a Rule 97 application before the executing Court. They cannot simply invoke Rule 35 and seek police assistance once resistance is on record. The proper course is to request adjudication through a hearing under Rule 98. Upon successful adjudication, the Court may grant possession, including by use of force through the process of the Court where necessary.

On the other hand, third parties who claim an independent right to the property should promptly file objections under Rule 97 or under Rule 99. They should avoid filing separate civil suits, as Rule 101 bars such duplication. The executing Court must hear and decide their claims as part of the same proceeding.

Order XXI Rules 97 to 103 of the CPC are thus designed to prevent obstruction from derailing execution proceedings. They provide a comprehensive statutory framework for both decree-holders and objectors to assert their respective rights before the executing Court. Once an objection is raised, the executing Court is legally obligated to adjudicate it, and the resulting order has the force of a decree, bringing finality to execution-stage disputes. Both sides must act strategically within this code, as parallel suits or procedural shortcuts are not only impermissible but also legally ineffective.