Harnek Singh vs Padam Kaur

J.V. Gupta, J.—This petition is directed against the order of the execution court dated September 17, 1986 whereby the objection petition filed by the judgment debtor was dismissed.

Padam Kumar decree holder (respondent) got a decree for possession of the suit land against Harnek Singh, Pritam Singh and Lok Raj on 16.11.1981. It is that decree passed in that suit, whose execution is being sought by the decree holder against Harnek Singh. Harnek Singh filed an objection petition purporting to be u/s 47 and Order 21 Rule 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure. That objection petition was contested on behalf of the decree holder. Before the executing court, it was contended on behalf of the objector that the decree holder cannot get possession of the disputed land because of the decree passed in civil suit No. 420 of 1983 on 2.9.1985 titled ''Harnek Singh v. Padam Kumar''. It was also contended that Padam Kumar decree holder can get the possession of the disputed site by getting a verdict in her favour from the Rent Controller u/s 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. The executing court repelled the said contention primarily on the basis of the statement made by Harnek Singh objector, wherein he himself denied the filing of any objection petition earlier. He also denied the very existence of the decree dated 16.11.1981.

The Learned Counsel for the objector submitted that the objection petition could not be dismissed summarily. The executing court should have framed necessary issues and allowed the parties to lead evidence. He referred to Section 141 of the CPC to contend that the procedure provided in this code in regard to suits shall be followed as far as it can be made applicable, in all proceedings in any court of civil jurisdiction. He also referred to a judgment of this Court in Civil Revision No. 2785 of 1987 decided on 13.5.1988 (1988 Civil Court Cases 501 P&H).

After hearing the Learned Counsel for the parties. I do not find any merit in this petition. From the copy of the judgment in Civil Suit No. 420 decided on 2.9.1985, it has been made amply clear therein that Civil Suit No. 37 of 29.9.1976 which was decreed on 16.11.1981 was "for a different parcel of land. In para 15 of the said judgment, it has been observed that "It was a suit filed by Padam Kumar against Harnek Singh and others for possession. It related to plot Nos. 49,50 and 51. That suit was hotly contested by Harnek Singh, who submitted his written statement. The issues were framed and evidence was led. In that case decree for possession was passed in favour of Padam Kumar and against Harnek Singh, to the following extent:

33-1/2 x T and 1-1/2 x T (total 245 square feet)

This judgment is dated 16.11.1981. The plaintiff has not cared to produce the copy of the decree sheet dated 16.11.1981 which has been challenged by him." It was further held that the plaintiff Harnek Singh has no locus standi to challenge the said decree in that suit when the decree pertains to different property and as such that decree is independently executable. In view of that finding, it could not be successfully argued on behalf of the objector-petitioner that in view of the decree obtained by him in the year 1985, the decree dated 16.11.1981 was not executable.

It appears that the objections were filed only to delay the execution proceedings. That being so, and because of a specific finding by the civil court in a suit bearing No. 420 of 1983 the executing court rightly found that there was no merit in the objection petition. Issues are framed and the parties are allowed to lead evidence, if the objection petition cannot be disposed of summarily. Since the controversy between the parties has already been settled in a civil suit filed by the objector himself, he cannot be allowed to agitate the same again in execution proceedings. In the view of the matter, the judgment referred to above is not applicable to the fact of the present case.

It may be observed that as and when the objections are filed to the execution of a decree, the execution court is not bound to frame the issues and allow the parties to lead evidence unless it com6s to a conclusion that there is some triable issue. If the executing court finds that the objections are frivolous and have been filed just to delay the execution proceedings, the same can be dismissed summarily. Even in a civil suit the plaint can be rejected summarily if it does not disclose any cause of action.

In this view of the matter, this petition fails and is dismissed with costs. The parties have been directed to appear in the executing court on January 3, 1989.