O. XXI R. 10 & 11(2) CPC | Power Of Attorney Holder Can Sign Execution Plea If Acquainted With Case Facts: Allahabad High Court

A bench of Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal held so while dismissing a petition challenging the maintainability of an execution application filed by the decree-holder's father, who was acting as his Power of Attorney holder.

Observing that Rules 10 and 11(2) of Order XXI of the CPC must be read harmoniously and not in isolation, the single judge clarified that the decree-holder himself need not necessarily sign the execution application if another person acquainted with the facts (including a Power of Attorney holder) does so to the satisfaction of the Court.

Case before the HC

A Shop located in Fazalganj, Saharanpur was let out to one Aatma Ram (judgment-debtors' grandfather) by Kewal Kishore (decree-holder). In 1978, Kewal Kishore instituted a civil suit seeking arrears of rent and ejectment.

In December 1981, he executed a Power of Attorney in favour of his father (Gurudas Mal), authorizing him to contest the suit, file vakalatnama, affidavits and appoint an advocate, etc.

The suit was ultimately decreed in 1993. A revision filed by the tenant was dismissed in 1994. The matter also reached the Supreme Court, which dismissed the civil appeal in 2000.

The decree-holder thereafter filed an Execution Case in 2002, which has been pending for over two decades. During its pendency, the original tenant Aatma Ram and his son Pradeep Kumar Jain died and their legal heirs (present petitioners) were substituted in the case.

The petitioners moved an objection under Section 47 CPC as they argued that the execution application was not maintainable since it was signed by the Power of Attorney holder (Gurudas Mal) and not by the decree-holder (Kewal Kishore) himself.

After the executing court and revisional court rejected this objection, the petitioners moved the HC with the present plea under Article 227.

Arguments advanced in HC

The petitioners contended that as per Order XXI Rule 10 CPC, the decree-holder himself must sign the execution application and the Power of Attorney holder was not authorized to initiate or verify execution proceedings.

It was argued that the Power of Attorney executed in 1981 was confined to the suit proceedings and did not extend to filing execution plea. The petitioners also submitted that the word 'shall' in Rule 10 makes the provision mandatory.

On the other hand, the counsel for the decree-holder argued that Rule 10 must be read in harmony with Rule 11(2) of Order XXI, which explicitly allows an application to be signed and verified by some other person proved to the satisfaction of the Court to be acquainted with the facts of the case.

It was pointed out that Gurudas Mal, the decree-holder's father and Power of Attorney holder, had been handling the case for over forty years and was fully aware of all the facts of the case and therefore, the execution application signed by him was valid.

High Court's order

The court, at the outset, reproduced Rules 10 and 11(2) of Order XXI and concluded that they both are complimentary to each other and in no way do they restrict or curtail the provisions contained therein.

The Court clarified that Rule 11(2) makes it clear that a decree-holder “himself need not make an application for getting the decree executed” and that such an application can be moved “by some other person proved to the satisfaction of the Court who is well acquainted with the facts of the case”.

Thus rejecting the petitioners' technical objections, the Court held:

"The argument raised by petitioners' counsel that application for execution needs to be mandatorily signed by decree-holder is thoroughly misplaced from the reading of Rule 11(2). Both Rule 10 and 11(2) are to be read in harmony and not in isolation".

The Court further observed that the verification of an execution application cannot be equated with the verification of pleadings under Order VI Rule 15 CPC, as the Rule 15 involves different procedural requirements.

In this case, the Court noted, since Gurudas Mal had been contesting the matter since 1981, the there was no illegality in his signing and verifying the execution application.

"The objection as to the maintainability of the execution application at his behest has been rightly sustained by executing court as well as the revisional court", the Court ruled.

Importantly, before parting with the order, the High Court expressed concern over the long pendency of the execution proceedings in this case.

Justice Agarwal referred to the Supreme Court's recent judgments in Periyammal vs. Rajamani 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 293 and Rahul S. Shah vs. Jindendra Kumar Gandhi LL 2021 SC 232 wherein it was observed that execution proceedings must be concluded expeditiously, preferably within six months from filing.

Accordingly, the Court directed the executing court to proceed with the Case in question and conclude it within two months.