The High Court of Tripura dismissed an appeal against the order of executing order and held that there is a mandate to execute the decree within a timeframe by every Executing Court in view of the fact that the petitioner is not even the plaintiff in the Title Suit, which in fact lies dismissed for default and has not been restored as yet; the approach of the learned Executing Court in proceeding with the execution decree cannot be found fault with.
Brief Facts:
The petitioner approached the Executing Court through a “Put-up petition” under Section 151 of CPC alleging that the decree which has been put to execution, has been obtained by practising fraud on the court and hence, a Title Suit No.10 of 2019 has been filed challenging the said decree on the grounds of fraud and sought deferment of the execution proceedings. The petitioner filed the present petition against the conduct of the executing court.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that the request of the defendant to allow the put-up petition through a new counsel has not been even taken note of by the Executing Court and the impugned order simply recorded that at the time of e.xecution of the decree, the judgment-debtor has obstructed the process as per the Bailiff’s report. It was submitted that the executing court had not paid any heed to defer the matter of execution
Observations of the court:
The court stated that the petitioner is not even the plaintiff in Title Suit No.10 of 2019 which seeks cancellation of the final decree and it has been dismissed for default and not even been restored and further it does not appear from the pleadings on record that the plaintiff in Title Suit No.10 of 2019 has made any application before the Executing Court in the manner in which the present petitioner is claiming.
The court stated that there is a mandate to execute the decree within a timeframe by every Executing Court in view of the decision rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Rahul S Shah v. Jinendra Kumar Gandhi & ors and in case the Executing Court fails to get the decree executed within the timeframe, it has to record its reasons in writing.
The court further referred to the impugned order and stated that it appeared that the Executing Court had the issue of delivery of possession which remained unexecuted as per the report of the Bailiff, since the judgment-debtor had obstructed the process and acting on the Bailiff’s report, the Executing Court has allowed the application for disconnection of the electric line of the house in question and also requested the SP, North Tripura to provide necessary information for deployment of police force.
The decision of the Court:
The court dismissed the petition and upheld the impugned order.
Case Title: Md. Maynul Haque vs. Mst. Joyrun Bibi
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh
Case No.: CRP No.49 of 2023
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. G.K. Nama
Advocate for the Respondent: None
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
