Naresh Kumar vs Smt. Roshni and Others

Paramjeet Singh, J.—Instant revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated

03.10.2011 (Annexure P-5) passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Gohana whereby on the basis of objections filed by

respondents no. 1 and 2, issues have been framed. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts relevant for disposal of the present petition are to the

effect that a civil suit No. 182 of 2006 instituted on 28.02.2006 and decided on 11.10.2007 was filed by the petitioner and his brother for partition

of the suit property with consequential relief of permanent injunction. A preliminary decree for partition of the suit property was passed by the

learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Gohana and thereafter the final decree was passed on 4.2.2009 by the learned Additional Civil Judge

(Sr. Divn.), Gohana. During the execution of the decree, respondents no. 1 and 2-objectors filed objections that they are in possession of the suit

land and are bona fide purchasers for consideration. On the basis of those objections, issues have been framed vide impugned order dated

03.10.2011 (Annexure P-5). Hence, this revision petition.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that he is a decree-holder along with his brother. In pursuance to the final decree,

possession of the property in dispute was sought to be taken by the petitioner-decree holder. The objectors are purchasers during the pendency of

the suit, as such any sale effected during the pendency of the suit is not binding upon the petitioner. They are stepping into the shoes of judgments

debtors. The Executing Court has wrongly framed the issues which will result into delay of delivery of possession to the petitioner in furtherance to

the decree passed on 4.2.2009 and the objections are required to be dismissed.

The learned counsel for the respondents no. 1 and 2-objectors has vehemently contended that Dharampal sold the land to Smt. Krishana wife

of Naresh and Smt. Luxmi wd/o Satyadev in equal shares vide registered sale deed No. 2184 dated 4.8.2006 and the possession of the land was

delivered to them and the mutation was also sanctioned on 3.10.2006. The said purchasers had sold the land to the objectors vide registered sale

deed no. 3139 dated 9.10.2006 and possession was also delivered to the objectors and mutation also stands sanctioned on 10.04.2007. They are

bona fide purchasers for valuable sale consideration, therefore, the issues have been rightly framed by the learned Executing Court. Without

framing of the issues, plea of respondents no. 1 and 2-objectors cannot be appreciated.

I have considered the rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

Admittedly, the suit was filed on 20.02.2006 and the sale deeds in question are subsequent to the filing of the suit and as such, the same are hit

by the principle of lis pendens. The proposition of law has been settled in numerous judgments by the Hon''ble Supreme Court and various High

Courts that the purpose of granting opportunity to prove his case to an objector while entertaining objections u/s 47 read with Order 21 Rule 97 to

108 of the CPC should not amount to putting premium on abuse of the process of law or Court. In the case o Rocky Tyres and Others Vs. Ajit

Jain and Another, , it has been held as under:

It is settled principle of law that it is not incumbent upon the executing Court that it must put to trial every objections which are filed in any

execution proceedings, even if prima facie they appear to be frivolous, vexatious and arc only intended to delay the execution and frustrate the

procedure of law or where it amounts to an abuse of the process of the Court. In this regard reference can be made to a judgment of this Court in

Execution Second Appeal No. 2333 of 1996, Bhagwan Singh v. Parkash Chand, decided on 7-11-1996. The Court after detailed discussion and

following the principles enunciated by the Hon''ble Supreme Court of India in the cases of Babulal Vs. Raj Kumar and Others, Munshi Ram and

Others Vs. Delhi Administration, B. Gangadhar Vs. B.G. Rajalingam, and noticing judgments of various High Courts, held as under:--

Now for a considerable period it is not only the judicial trend which has declined to interfere to protect unlawful possession or possession of

ranked trespasser etc. but, on the other hand, judicial anxiety has been to give effective relief to the successful parties by expeditious execution of

decrees in favour of the parties. Unnecessary prolongation of litigation sometimes results even in frustrating the decree itself. Such attempt on the

part of the objector to frustrate a decree is a mischief which has to be prevented by due process of law and expeditious decision of such ill-

founded and frivolous objections would also be in the interest of justice and within the permissible field of jurisdiction of the execution.

If frivolous objections of the present kind are permitted to unreasonably and unnecessarily prolong the delivery of possession to a decree-holder in

accordance with law, it would certainly amount to putting a premium on abuse of process of law.

In view of the settled position of law, this Court is of the view that the objections filed by respondents no. 1 and 2-objectors are frivolous. They

are purchasers during the pendency of the suit. As such, they are not entitled to the indulgence of this Court. If this is allowed, then the decree

holders who have wasted number of years in litigation will not be able to enjoy the fruits of final decree. One after the other objector will come and

create delay in the execution of the decree.

For the reasons stated above, I find that framing of issues in the present case is wrongful exercise of jurisdiction. In view of above, present

revision petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 03.10.2011 (Annexure P-5) is set aside. No order as to costs.