Hari Ram vs K.L. Gandhi And Ors.
2004 Latest Caselaw 164 Del

JUDGMENT

Vikramajit Sen, J.

1. This Revision is directed against the Order of the learned Additional District Judge dated 2.7.1999. The facts of the case are that the Respondent, Mr. K.L. Gandhi had made a Statement on oath before the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi on 14.7.1994 to the following effect:

"I Along with my brother Shri Prehlad Gandhi have sold the land bearing kh. No.471/345 measuring (3-3-) 472/345 (3-6) totalling (6-9) situated in the revenue estate of vill. Dallupura vide assignment deed/sale deed in favor of Shri Hari Ram, S/o Shri Bhagwan r/o 118, Serai Kale Khan, New Delhi regd. At No.396. Addl. book No.1 volume no.2552 pages 186 to 190 dt. 27.1.94. Now I have no interest in the aforesaid land/compensation. Compensation of the aforesaid land may be given to the applicant/assignee/vendee, Siri Hari Ram. The assignment deed is Ex. HR. Same is correct".

2. As is evident an Assignment Deed had been executed by Shri K.L. Gandhi and Shri Pehlad Gandhi to the same effect as this Statement. In these circumstances the Petitioner had preferred an application under Order XXII Rule 10 which was disposed of with the observations that the proceedings had already come to a conclusion by the passing of a Decree. The Petitioner thereupon initiated execution proceedings in which a Notice to the Assignors was issued under Order XXI Rule 6 of the CPC. It is pursuant to this Notice that Shri K.L. Gandhi has filed Objections, the gravamen of which is that the consideration for the execution of the Assignment Deed was wholly insufficient and much below the market price of the land. The learned Trial Court has directed the parties to lead evidence in support of their respective claims.

3. In the impugned Order itself it is recorded that the Objectors had "admittedly, executed a registered assignment deed in favor of applicant Hari Ram on 27.1.94. The execution deed, as such, has not been called in question. However, I.P. No.6 & 7, now, allege that the assignment deed is not free from coercion. The land in question is worth lacs, and the consideration, mentioned in the assignment deed, is very small". In the course of these proceedings itself the statement of Shri K.L. Gandhi was recorded on 19.8.2002. He has stated on oath that- "Nobody has threatened me to give the statement before the Court on 14th July, 1999. Nobody has given any threat of any kind causing damage to my property or reputation".

4. The neat question which arises for consideration is whether the Objections raised by the Respondents required any further adjudication by the reception and recording of evidence. Since the Assignment Deed dated 27.1.1994 has been admitted, and since there is no suspicion or coercion in regard to its execution and even in respect of the confirming statement made before the learned Additional District Judge on 14.7.1994, the only avenue open to the Objectors for setting aside the Assignment Deed was to bring an action for the cancellation of the document under the Specific Relief Act or any other provision of law applicable to the facts of the case. Since the Deed was executed on 27.1.1994, the period of limitation for filing such an action would stand extinguished on 27.1.1997. Admittedly, no suit for the cancellation of this Deed has been filed till date. The learned Additional District Judge has relied on a Judgment of this Court in First Regular Appeal No.117/74 decided on 10.10.1984 titled Smt. Angoori Devi vs. Union of India. While doing so, however, it seems that he has lost sight of the distinguishing feature in that case and the case in hand, inasmuch as this Court had ordered non-payment of compensation to the claimant party for a certain period to enable the opposite party to file appropriate proceedings. It can only be assumed or inferred that at that point in time the prescription of three years for initiating an action for the cancellation of the Deed had not expired.

5. Legal proceedings should be brought to an end as early as is possible. I would be loathe to entertain a plea which has been revised after inordinate and unexplained delay. In this case we are at the stage of the execution of a Decree. Learned counsel for the Objector has not been able to cite any case which permits a contract to be set aside on the ground of inadequate consideration. This is, in fact, the essence of the Objections which have been raised before the learned Additional District Judge. I am also not aware of any provision in the Contract Act which permits a Court of Law to look into the adequacy of consideration in a contract which has been otherwise been freely entered into. In these circumstances on the date when the impugned Order was passed, there was no defense or Objection in existence or available to the Court for adjudication. Once that position is arrived at, it will be axiomatic that no purpose whatsoever would be served in keeping the Objections alive by ordering the parties to lead evidence. Proceedings would be protracted in a manner which would defeat the ends of justice.

6. The learned Additional District Judge has exercised jurisdiction in an erroneous manner. The impugned Order is accordingly set aside. The result would be that the Objections filed by the Respondents would have to be dismissed. Ordered accordingly.

7. Revision Petition stands disposed of in these terms. Parties to bear their respective costs.