Swatanter Kumar, J.:— In this revision petition order dated 2.6.1998 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Narnaul is impugned.
2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in view of the recent pronouncements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the cases of Brahmdeo Choudhary v. Rishikesh Prasad Jaiswal, J.T 1997 (1) S.C 641 and Silverline Forum Pvt. Ltd. v. Rajiv Trust, J.T 1998 (3) S.C 1, the learned executing Court could not have dismissed the objections as not maintainable on the principles laid down in the case of Bank of Baroda v. R.M Patwa, 1996 (2) S.L.J 1285 : 1996 (2) RRR 460 (SC). It is contended that the executing Court was obliged to conduct an enquiry and decide the objections on merits.
3. The submissions raised on behalf of the petitioner at the face of it is misconceived. It is true that the Hon'ble Apex Court in the recent judgments has taken a different view than what had been taken in the case of Bank of Baroda's case (supra). Now it is settled that a third party who was not a party to the suit proceedings can also file objections and the Court can entertain and decide the said objections even in execution proceedings. Acceptance of this argument does not forward the case of the objector because the learned executing Court in the present case framed two issues and decided both the issues on merits after affording an opportunity to the parties to adduce their evidence.
4. Furthermore the whole case of the objector was that she was inducted as a tenant by Mohinder Kumar, who was stated to be the grandson of the decree-holder in partnership business with Shri Hanuman Parsad. The decree was passed against Hanuman Parsad which is sought to be executed by the decree holder. The claim of the objector that she was inducted as a tenant was supported by a receipt of tenancy alleged to have been executed by Mohinder Kumar. It is interesting to note that neither Mohinder Kumar was produced as a witness nor the objector herself opted to come in the witness box. It is in fact strange as to how receipt could be exhibited at all as OW4.A because neither the executant nor the person in whose name the receipt was made and before whom the receipt was executed appeared in the witness box.
5. The objections filed by the objector are frivolous and intended to delay the process of law. The decree holder has not been able to enjoy the fruits of the decree which was passed in his favour as far back as on 8.11.1990 In fact the objections of the present kind ought to be rejected right at the threshold as being abuse of the process of law. Reference in this regard can be made to the judgment of this Court in the case of Gurdev Singh v. Punjab National Bank, AIR 1998 Punjab and Haryana 106 : 1998 (2) RRR (Civll) 306 (P&H), wherein it was held as under:—
“Altering the terms of the decree must be clearly understood in contrast of construing a decree or interpreting a decree or giving clarity to its terms and conditions. In the garb of the latter, the court cannot create a new decree which is neither intended nor passed by the Court of competent jurisdiction. Executing Court can provide clarity interpret or construe the decree, while keeping the decree as passed by the Court of competent jurisdiction intact and undisturbed. While exercising its jurisdiction if the executing court in the guise of the ingredients materially alters the terms and conditions of the decree to the prejudice of any of the parties of the decree, which ought to have, if at all, falls in the domain of courts of competent jurisdiction, i.e appellate or the Court that passed the decree, certainly, the executing would outguess its jurisdiction as an executing court.”
6. In this regard reliance can also be placed on the judgment of this Court in Rocky Tyres… v. Ajit Jain…, 1998-3 PLR 53 : 1998 (2) RRR (Civil) 17 (P&H) C.R No. 3293 of 1996, decided on 17.12.1997, wherein it was observed 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 are only intended to delay the execution and frustrate the procedure of law or where it amount 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.
xxxxxxxxxxxx
Thus the cardinal principle of law that follows is that the purpose of granting an opportunity to prove his case to an objector while entertaining objections under Section 47 read with Order 21, Rules 97 to 108 of the Civil Procedure Code does not amount to permission for abusing the process of law or court. The discretion must be exercised by the Court in such cases. Of course discretion is governed by settled judicial principles and must be exercised within four corners of law, but such a discretion cannot be termed as a mere routine exercise of judicial discretion. Either way it should be for well founded and settled principles governing the subject.”
7. In view of the above detailed discussion, I find no merit in this revision as the impugned order does not suffer from any jurisdictional or other error apparent on the face of the record which would call any interference of this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. This revision petition is dismissed in limine.
Petition dismissed.
Comments