The Allahabad High Court has directed a Meerut court to decide, preferably within three months, a housing society’s objection that has stalled the execution of a 2012 eviction decree against Punjab National Bank, even though the bank has vacated the premises and deposited the keys in court.
Justice Yogendra Kumar Srivastava held that giving an objector a fair hearing cannot justify an indefinite delay in executing a decree, and directed the executing court to decide the decree-holder’s plea for possession once the objection is disposed of.
Background
Smt. Nirmala Devi filed a suit against Punjab National Bank and its officials in 2010, seeking eviction from premises No. A-38, Saket, Meerut, and recovery of arrears of rent. The suit was decreed on 27.08.2012, and the bank challenged the decree in a civil revision before the High Court. During the suit, Meerut Sahkari Awas Samiti Limited had sought impleadment, but its application was rejected on 25.01.2012.
The petitioner claims to be entitled to pursue the case under a registered Will dated 20.11.2021, after Nirmala Devi died on 03.02.2024. The petitioner filed an execution case on 05.08.2025, in which the Society filed an objection under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC.
On 11.03.2026, the High Court noted in the bank’s revision that the bank had vacated the premises on 14.07.2025 and paid the arrears, but had not handed over the keys because of the dispute between the landlord and the Society. It directed the bank to deposit the keys before the executing court, which the bank did on 01.04.2026.
On 30.05.2026, however, the executing court deferred the petitioner’s plea for release of the keys and delivery of possession until the Society’s objection was decided. The Society’s transfer application was rejected by the District Judge, Meerut, and its challenge to that order before the High Court was withdrawn on 22.09.2026.
Arguments
Senior Counsel Vikrant Rana, appearing along with Nilakshi Tripathi for the petitioner, argued that despite the 2012 decree and the deposit of the keys, the petitioner had not got possession because the objection remained pending. He sought a time-bound direction for its disposal.
Advocate Krishna Mohan Asthana, appearing for the bank and its officials, said the bank had no objection to the relief sought, as the keys had already been deposited. The Court dispensed with notice to the Society, clarifying that its right to contest the proceedings was unaffected.
Court’s Findings
The Court held that its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 can be used to prevent undue delay and secure the effective progress of proceedings before subordinate courts. It observed that “The enforcement of a decree is an integral part of the administration of justice.”
Balancing the rights of both sides, the Court said:
“The need to afford a fair opportunity to an objector does not justify avoidable or indefinite delay in execution proceedings; equally, the objective of expeditious execution cannot be used to bypass the procedure prescribed for adjudicating an objection.”
On the rejection of the Society’s impleadment plea in 2012, the Court held that its legal effect must be examined by the executing court, adding that “The applicability of res judicata or constructive res judicata cannot be determined merely by reference to the fact that the earlier impleadment application was rejected.”
Referring to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Rahul S. Shah vs. Jinendra Kumar Gandhi, the Court noted the importance of ensuring that procedural delays do not deprive a successful litigant of the fruits of a decree.
Directions
The Court directed the Additional District Judge, Court No. 18, Meerut, to decide the Society’s objection preferably within three months of receiving a certified copy of the order, after hearing the parties. The executing court will then decide the petitioner’s plea for release of the keys and delivery of possession as expeditiously as possible, avoiding unnecessary adjournments.
The Court made it clear that it expressed no opinion on the merits of the objection, the effect of the 2012 order, or the parties’ rights to possession. The petition was disposed of without costs.
Case Title: Smt. Nirmala Devi (Since Deceased) vs. Punjab National Bank and 3 others
Case No.: Matters Under Article 227 No. 13174 of 2026
Bench: Justice Yogendra Kumar Srivastava
Date: October 28, 2026
