Ashok Kumar Gupta vs Tripti Lakkhan

Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J

The petitioner is the objector under Order XXI Rule 97 of CPC and is aggrieved by the order dated 18.06.2025 passed in Execution Case No. 20 of 2016, whereby and whereunder, an application under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 C.P.C for amendment in the original application filed under Order XXI Rule 97, 99 has been rejected.

In order to appreciate the issues, raised in the present civil miscellaneous petition, it is desirable to set out the list of dates leading to filing of the present civil misc. petition.

18.01.1984 : Title (Partition) Suit No. 01 of 1984 claiming partition of land mentioned in the schedule property was filed by Nakul Chandra Dutta and Nishit Kr. Dutta (respondent No.3).

02.08.1985: The suit was decreed ex-parte against all the defendants declaring that the plaintiffs were jointly entitled to 3/13th share.

2008 : Final decree was prepared. Judgment and decree attained finality as no appeal was preferred.

2016 : Tripti Lakhan filed Execution Case No. 20 of 2016 for execution of decree in T.P. Suit No. 01/1984.

2018 : The present petitioner filed objection petition under Order XXI Rule 97, 99 read with Section 151 of CPC claiming to be in possession of the property for last 50 years.

14.10.2018 : Notice was sent to the petitioner for Execution Case No. 20 of 2016.

2018 : The objector’s miscellaneous case was dismissed against which Civil Appeal No. 14 of 2018 was preferred which was also dismissed on 11.02.2019.

13.05.2019 : S.A. No. 88 of 2019 was preferred against the dismissal of civil appeal.

11.02.2025: Second Appeal was disposed of with direction to the Executing Court to decide on merit of the objector’s plea within a period of three months.

09.06.2025: An application under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC was filed which has been rejected on 18.06.2025 and aggrieved by the said order, the instant civil miscellaneous petition is preferred.

Learned Executing Court rejected the petition on the ground that the petitioner instead of setting of his own case by way of pleading was trying to find fault and technical errors in the case of the decree holder so as to buttress his case. The pleadings were by and large the same on which earlier Civil Miscellaneous Case No. 49 of 2018 was filed.

The proposed amendments run into 13A to 13N almost 14 paragraphs. The gist of the amendment petition is that it came to the knowledge of the objector that the disputed land was the property of the State of Bihar (now Jharkhand) under town Khas Mahal lease hold land and lease of the same has not been granted in the name of the decree holder or her predecessor-in-interest. Since the Khas Mahal Officer or the State of Jharkhand have not been impleaded as party, therefore, the deed is not executable.

It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite parties, that the land in question was a Khas Mahal holding and it was very much within the knowledge of the objector. Despite these pleas were not taken in the original objection, rather after the matter was remanded back by the Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court in S.A. No. 88 of 2019 with specific direction that the objector will appear before the Executing Court on 10.06.2025 and will lead the evidence and the objection was to be disposed of within a period of three months from the date of appearance. It is also submitted that no evidence was led on behalf of the objector within the stipulated period of three months and only to linger the adjudication, amendment petition was filed on 09.06.2025.

It is also argued that more than four decades have elapsed since passing of the original decree in the title suit, opposite party no. 1, who is a senior citizen, aged more than 70 years, still has not received the fruits of the decree.

The old adage goes that trouble of the litigant arises after he obtains decree in a suit. List of dates demonstrates as set out earlier will go to show that fruits of the decree in the Partition Suit eludes the decree holder after more than four decades. Petitioner/objector was given an opportunity in the second appeal, when the matter was remanded giving the Petitioner to lead evidence and conclude the hearing within three months. No attempt was made to lead any evidence or the hearing, instead a new Case was attempted to be set up by filing an amendment petition to the original objection, stating therein that earlier he was oblivious of the nature of the land to lease hold and therefore the amendment was filed. It is rather bizarre that in 40 years of litigation the objector came to know about the nature of the land at the stage of execution of the decree. Litigants’ woes have been summed up in Subrata Roy Sahara v. Union of India & Ors., (2014) 8 SCC 470 :

The Indian judicial system is grossly afflicted with frivolous litigation. Ways and means need to be evolved to deter litigants from their compulsive obsession towards senseless and ill-considered claims. One needs to keep in mind that in the process of litigation, there is an innocent sufferer on the other side of every irresponsible and senseless claim. He suffers long-drawn anxious periods of nervousness and restlessness, whilst the litigation is pending without any fault on his part. He pays for the litigation from out of his savings (or out of his borrowings) worrying that the other side may trick him into defeat for no fault of his. He spends invaluable time briefing counsel and preparing them for his claim. Time which he should have spent at work, or with his family, is lost, for no fault of his. Should a litigant not be compensated for what he has lost for no fault?

The learned Executing Court has rightly rejected the amendment petition which has been brought to procrastinate the execution proceeding. There is a specific mandate of the Apex Court to dispose the execution cases within six months in Rahul S. Shah v. Jinendra Kumar Gandhi, (2021) 6 SCC 418.

I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order.

The civil miscellaneous petition stands dismissed with cost. Cost assessed to Rs.5,000/- which is to be paid to the opposite parties.

Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of.