Order 21 Rule 97 CPC Application Template

About this agreement

Application Under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC Format

Facing resistance or obstruction while executing a decree for possession of immovable property? Secure your rights swiftly with our professional Application Under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC format, available for instant download in PDF or Word format, ready to use in Indian courts.

What is an Application Under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC?

An Application under Order 21 Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908, is a crucial legal document filed in execution proceedings. It addresses situations where the decree holder or auction purchaser of immovable property encounters resistance or obstruction from any person (including judgment debtors or third parties) in obtaining physical possession. This provision empowers the court to inquire into the resistance, remove obstructions, and direct police assistance if needed. Commonly used in civil execution cases across India, this Application Under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC format ensures compliance with procedural laws, preventing delays in enforcing court decrees.

Why is it Important?

Filing this application promptly is vital as Rule 97 mandates it within 30 days of resistance to avoid procedural lapses. It protects decree holders from unlawful interference, upholds judicial orders, and facilitates smooth transfer of possession. In high-stake property disputes—such as eviction suits, partition decrees, or auction sales—using a precise Application Under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC sample minimizes rejection risks due to formatting errors. Courts in India strictly scrutinize these applications for completeness, making a standardized legal template indispensable for litigants, advocates, and legal professionals.

Key Elements of the Application Under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC Format

Our customizable Application Under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC format includes all essential sections:

Court and Case Details: Jurisdiction, execution case number, and suit reference.
Parties Involved: Applicant (decree holder/purchaser) and respondent (obstructor) particulars.
Decree Description: Date, nature, and court passing the decree for possession.
Property Details: Precise identification of the immovable property (survey number, boundaries, etc.).
Facts of Resistance: Chronology of events, date of obstruction, and nature (physical/legal).
Supporting Evidence: Affidavit, witness statements, or prior orders.
Prayer Clause: Relief sought, including removal of obstruction, possession delivery, and costs.
Verification: Signed declaration by the applicant.

This ready-to-use structure aligns with court requirements, saving time and ensuring enforceability.

Who Should Use This Format?

Ideal for:

Decree holders in possession suits (e.g., eviction, specific performance).
Auction purchasers in execution sales facing third-party claims.
Lawyers handling civil recovery or partition matters.
Businesses or individuals enforcing property decrees in district courts, high courts, or tribunals across India.

Whether in metropolitan cities like Delhi, Mumbai, or smaller towns, this legal template streamlines your execution process.

Download Your Customizable Application Under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC Now!

Don't let obstructions delay justice. Avail our free download option for a basic Application Under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC sample, or upgrade to premium paid versions with AI-assisted customization or lawyer-reviewed edits. Available in editable Word and print-ready PDF formats—perfect for immediate filing.

Disclaimer and Next Steps

This Application Under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC format is a generic template tailored for Indian legal use. Customize it to your case specifics and consult a qualified advocate for advice. Not a substitute for professional legal services. Explore related formats like Execution Petition under Order 21 CPC, Objection under Rule 97, or Affidavit for Possession for comprehensive execution support.

Keywords: Application Under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC format, free download India, CPC execution application sample, ready to use legal template, customizable PDF Word format, court filing requirements.

APPLICATION UNDER ORDER 21, RULE 97, C. P. C.

APPLICATION UNDER ORDER 21, RULE 97, C. P. C.

IN THE COURT OF....................

Suit No..................... of 19........................................

C. D................................................................... Plaintiff

versus

C. F................................................................ Defendant

The applicant most respectfully submits as under: —

1. That a decree for possession of the property mentioned in the decree dated .................... of this Hon’ble Court was passed in favour of the applicant against the judgment-debtor.

2. That on.................... (date) the applicant obtained from this Hon’ble Court a warrant for possession of the house of the judgment-debtor and on .................... (date) the court Amin visited the house of the Judgment Debtor to execute warrant of possession.

3. That the decree could not be executed due to resistence and obstruction caused by the judgment-debtor and the members of his family.

4. That the resistance and obstruction caused by the judgment-debtor and by other members of his family was without any just cause.

PRAYER

It is, therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue notice to the opposite parties and investigation may be ordered to be made in the matter and thereafter orders may be passed to put the applicant in possession of the property.

It is accordingly prayed.

Plaintiff

Through Advocate

Place:..................

Dated:..................

case law

Order 21 Rule 97

LIMITATION FOR PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE RULE

Article 167 of the Limitation Act gives a right to the decree-holder to initiate proceedings under this Rule within 30 days from the date of resistance. The law does not contemplate removal of cause of action or extention of limitation for initiating a proceeding under this Rule merely by putting second or any number of subsequent applications being resisted every time by the same person and initiating a proceeding within 30 days of the second or the last resistance1.

LIMITATION IN CASE OF TWO SUCCESSIVE OBSTRUCTIONS.

What Article 129 of the Limitation Act of 1983 does is to bar the making of an application about the resistance or obstruction which was made more than 30 days ago. If a second obstruction is made, the complaint is not about the first obstruction but is about the second obstruction and since the law allows the decree-holder to make such an application, it cannot be said that the provisions of Article 129 are made nugatory2.

WHAT SHOULD BE STARTING POINT OF LIMITATION.

Each obstruction made in execution of warrant for delivery of possession provides a fresh cause of action for filing an application under this Rule3.

APPLICABILITY OF THE RULE

What is required to be shown in order to maintain an obstruction to delivery of property is really possession of the person so obstructing. But proof of such possession would be of no avail unless it is further established that possession was not obtained from or under the judgment-debtor, for if it be otherwise, it would naturally be subject to the result of the suit. Any transaction during pendency of the suit would be hit by the rule of his pendens and therefore possession of person obstructing, based upon his coming into possession pendente lite, would of course be not sufficient. That is why what has to be shown is independent possession4.

If an order is passed by an executing Court after 1st February 1977 disposing of an application under this Rule which was pending on that date, the order passed by the executing Court is appealable under the provisions of the amended Code and the aggrieved party has no right to file a suit under the provisions of the Code as it stood before the amendment5.

APPEAL AGAINST ORDER

Order under Rule 97 in accordance with Rule 98 is only appealable, and revision is not competent6.

NON-MAINTAINABILITY OF OBJECTION BY MINOR SON OF JUDGMENT-DEBTOR.

Where the suit for eviction had been decreed and the decree became final, the objection filed by a minor son of the judgment-debtor before execution of the decree would not be maintainable7.

EXECUTION PROCEEDINGS

Order 21 Rule 97

The suit in respect of same subject matter of property filed after intimation of execution proceedings by appellant who is not a party to the decree is not maintainable.8

RECORDING OF COMPROMISE

The order dismissing the execution petition as withdrawn cannot be taken as recording of the compromise by the executing court.9

1. Smt. Madora Bibi v. Mohd Mateen, A. I. R. 1980 All. 206: 1980 (6) All. L. R. 246.

2. Parmeswaran v. Kumara Pillai, A. I. R. 1981 Ker. 29.

3. Narayan and another v. Smt. Kalyan Bai, (Raj. H. C. ) 1985 (2) C. C. C. 584.

4. Raghavan Nair v. Bhagyalakshmi Amma, A. I. R. 1972 Ker. 125: 1972 Ker. L. T. 339.

5. Dattatray v. Mangal, A. I. R. 1983 M. P. 82: 1983 M. P. L. J. 23: 1983 Jab. L. J. 242.

6. Smt. Santilal Paul v. Nandkishore Mukherjee, A. I. R. 1981 Cal. 219: (1981) 1 C. H. N. 401: (1981) 85 C. W. N 497.

7. Kishan Kumar Kanaujia v. Smt. Rakesh Gupta, A. I. R. 1983 All. 256.

8. Prasantha Banerji v. Pushpa Ashoke Chandani, AIR 2000 SC 3567 (2).

9. Lakshmi Narayanan v. S. S. Pandian, AIR 2000 SC 2757.

0 PDF downloads

0 Word downloads

Download PDF₹99 Download Word₹99

Important Guidelines

Guidelines for Drafting an Application under Order 21, Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure Purpose: An application under Order 21, Rule 97 of the CPC is utilized for setting aside or confirming a sale conducted through court-ordered execution, typically in cases of property auctions or sales to recover debts.

Usage:

Employed when a party wishes to challenge the legality or fairness of a sale conducted under court orders. Applicable in cases where there are irregularities or procedural errors in the conduct of the sale. Drafting Steps:

Title and Address: Clearly title the application and address it to the appropriate court where the sale took place. Parties Information: Provide complete details of the applicant(s), judgment debtor(s), auction purchaser(s), and the executing court. Case Details: Mention the case number, court name, and the presiding judge. Sale Details: Describe the details of the sale, including the property or assets sold, date of sale, and sale price. Grounds for Application: Clearly state the grounds for seeking to set aside or confirm the sale, citing any irregularities, procedural errors, or legal objections. Relief Sought: Specify the relief sought, i.e., setting aside or confirming the sale, and any ancillary relief requested. Legal Basis: Cite Order 21, Rule 97 CPC as the legal basis for the application. Supporting Documents: Attach any supporting documents, such as affidavits, sale notices, and sale proclamation.

Common Mistakes to Avoid:

Incomplete Information: Ensure all relevant details about the sale and grounds for application are provided. Missing Legal Basis: Clearly cite the relevant legal provisions and procedural rules. Failure to Attach Supporting Documents: Provide all necessary documents to support the application. Ignoring Timelines: Adhere to the prescribed timelines for filing the application and serving notices. By adhering to these guidelines, you can effectively draft an application under Order 21, Rule 97 CPC, to challenge or confirm a sale conducted through court-ordered execution, ensuring fairness and legal compliance.

Frequently asked questions

What is an Application under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC?→

This is a legal application filed under the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) in India by an obstructionist or person resisting delivery of possession during execution of a decree, to assert their rights over the property.

Is this Application under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC legally valid in India?→

Yes, it is a standard format recognized under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC, enforceable in all civil courts across India upon proper filing and adjudication.

Do I need to pay stamp duty or court fees for this application?→

No stamp duty is typically required as it is a court application; however, court fees must be paid as per the relevant court rules and schedules in your jurisdiction in India.

In what format can I download this Application under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC?→

You can download it in editable Word (.docx) or non-editable PDF formats, suitable for immediate use or customization in legal proceedings.

Can I edit or customize this Application under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC?→

Yes, the template is fully customizable; modify details like case number, parties' names, facts, and grounds to fit your specific execution case in India.

When and who should use an Application under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC?→

Decree holders, obstructionists, or third parties should use it when facing resistance to possession in execution proceedings under CPC in Indian courts.

APPLICATION UNDER ORDER 21, RULE 97, C. P. C.

APPLICATION UNDER ORDER 21, RULE 97, C. P. C.

IN THE COURT OF....................

Suit No..................... of 19........................................

C. D................................................................... Plaintiff

versus

C. F................................................................ Defendant

The applicant most respectfully submits as under: —

1. That a decree for possession of the property mentioned in the decree dated .................... of this Hon’ble Court was passed in favour of the applicant against the judgment-debtor.

3. That the decree could not be executed due to resistence and obstruction caused by the judgment-debtor and the members of his family.

4. That the resistance and obstruction caused by the judgment-debtor and by other members of his family was without any just cause.

PRAYER

It is accordingly prayed.

Plaintiff

Through Advocate

Place:..................

Dated:..................

case law

Order 21 Rule 97

LIMITATION FOR PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE RULE

LIMITATION IN CASE OF TWO SUCCESSIVE OBSTRUCTIONS.

WHAT SHOULD BE STARTING POINT OF LIMITATION.

Each obstruction made in execution of warrant for delivery of possession provides a fresh cause of action for filing an application under this Rule3.

APPLICABILITY OF THE RULE

APPEAL AGAINST ORDER

Order under Rule 97 in accordance with Rule 98 is only appealable, and revision is not competent6.

NON-MAINTAINABILITY OF OBJECTION BY MINOR SON OF JUDGMENT-DEBTOR.

Where the suit for eviction had been decreed and the decree became final, the objection filed by a minor son of the judgment-debtor before execution of the decree would not be maintainable7.

EXECUTION PROCEEDINGS

Order 21 Rule 97

The suit in respect of same subject matter of property filed after intimation of execution proceedings by appellant who is not a party to the decree is not maintainable.8

RECORDING OF COMPROMISE

The order dismissing the execution petition as withdrawn cannot be taken as recording of the compromise by the executing court.9

1. Smt. Madora Bibi v. Mohd Mateen, A. I. R. 1980 All. 206: 1980 (6) All. L. R. 246.

2. Parmeswaran v. Kumara Pillai, A. I. R. 1981 Ker. 29.

3. Narayan and another v. Smt. Kalyan Bai, (Raj. H. C. ) 1985 (2) C. C. C. 584.

4. Raghavan Nair v. Bhagyalakshmi Amma, A. I. R. 1972 Ker. 125: 1972 Ker. L. T. 339.

5. Dattatray v. Mangal, A. I. R. 1983 M. P. 82: 1983 M. P. L. J. 23: 1983 Jab. L. J. 242.

6. Smt. Santilal Paul v. Nandkishore Mukherjee, A. I. R. 1981 Cal. 219: (1981) 1 C. H. N. 401: (1981) 85 C. W. N 497.

7. Kishan Kumar Kanaujia v. Smt. Rakesh Gupta, A. I. R. 1983 All. 256.

8. Prasantha Banerji v. Pushpa Ashoke Chandani, AIR 2000 SC 3567 (2).

9. Lakshmi Narayanan v. S. S. Pandian, AIR 2000 SC 2757.

0 PDF downloads

0 Word downloads

Download PDF₹99 Download Word₹99