The Orissa High Court held that an executing court has the authority to evict a judgment-debtor and other occupants from immovable property when executing a decree for possession under Order 21 Rule 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Division Bench clarified that when a civil court grants a decree for possession of property to a decree-holder, the executing court must take all necessary steps to ensure that the decree is given effective and meaningful compliance, including eviction of the judgment-debtor and any unauthorized occupants who resist handing over physical possession of the property. The Court underscored that a decree for possession confers on the decree-holder not only a right on paper but also a right to actual physical possession, and that the execution process must secure that right in substance.
The case arose from a suit in which the plaintiff, having obtained a decree for money and for delivery of possession of immovable property mortgaged as security for the debt, sought execution of the decree. The decree-holder moved for eviction of the judgment-debtor and others found in occupation of the property. In resisting the execution application, the judgment-debtor and occupants argued that the executing court lacked jurisdiction to order eviction of persons who were not named as parties in the decree and that eviction could not be ordered against tenants, family members, or other occupants who were not personally bound by the decree. They contended that a decree for possession in a civil suit could not be extended to affect third parties not before the court in the original proceedings.
In analysing the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code, the High Court emphasised that Order 21 Rule 32 empowers the executing court to issue orders necessary for giving effect to a decree for possession, including removal of obstructions and eviction of persons resisting delivery of actual physical possession. The Court noted that the executing court’s jurisdiction is derived from the decree itself and must be exercised to implement the substantive right conferred on the decree-holder. It observed that simply delivering symbolic or nominal control of the property is insufficient where actual possession is withheld by the judgment-debtor or other occupants; the decree-holder is entitled to be put into exclusive physical possession.
The High Court rejected the argument that eviction could not be ordered against occupants not named in the decree. It held that where such persons continue to occupy the property and resist delivery of possession, they effectively interfere with the decree-holder’s rights, and the executing court must act to remove them. The Court clarified that the execution process under Order 21 is distinct from independent landlord-tenant or eviction suits under other statutes; in execution of a civil decree, the focus is on giving effect to the decree rather than litigating separate causes of action. It explained that eviction under the execution proceedings serves the purpose of restoring to the decree-holder the full enjoyment and use of the property as intended by the civil court that passed the decree.
The bench further observed that there is no provision in the Civil Procedure Code that limits the executing court’s power to evict only the judgment-debtor; where occupants refuse to vacate, the court may remove any person whose continued presence obstructs compliance with the decree. The executing court may seek assistance of appropriate authorities, if necessary, to effect physical eviction to ensure that the decree-holder’s right to possession is realised in practice.
Applying these principles, the Orissa High Court upheld the executing court’s authority to order eviction of the judgment-debtor and other unauthorized occupants from the immovable property in execution of the decree for possession. The Court held that eviction is an integral part of the execution process when compliance with a decree for possession is resisted, and that the executing court must act to secure actual physical possession for the decree-holder as mandated by Order 21 Rule 32 CPC. The judgment reaffirms that execution proceedings must give effect to substantive rights conferred by decrees and that eviction powers are available to executing courts to enforce possession decrees fully.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.