Pradeep Chand Giri vs Harish Sethi
2014 Latest Caselaw 2581 Del

*              IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                          RSA 167/2009
%                                                           20th May, 2014

PRADEEP CHAND GIRI                                        ......Appellant
                 Through:                Mr. A.K.Vali and Mr. Tuhin, Advs.


                           VERSUS

HARISH SETHI                                                ...... Respondent
                           Through:       Mr. Rajat Aneja, Adv. with Mr.
                                         Ishaan Chhaya, Adv.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA

To be referred to the Reporter or not?


VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

1.             The present regular second appeal is filed against the impugned

judgments deciding objections in executions. By the concurrent judgments,

execution      petition   was   dismissed    and    the   objections    of    the

respondent/objector were allowed. The objections have been decided

without framing of issues and leading of evidence.


2.             Order 21 of CPC was amended by Act 104 of 1976 along with

other provisions of CPC, and after the amendment, objections which are

filed by which the objector claims a title in the suit property independent of

RSA 167/2009                                                    Page 1 of 3
 the judgment debtor, have to be tried like a suit inasmuch as filing of a suit

by an objector who objects to execution of a decree is barred. Objections

therefore are in a nature of suit and have to be heard and decided more or

less as per the proceedings of a suit.


3.             Since in the present case no issues have been framed and both

the parties were not allowed to lead evidence as per the relevant provisions

of Order 21 Rules 97 to 103 CPC, and as applicable, parties agree that the

impugned judgments dated 28.08.2004 and 30.10.2006 be and are thus set

aside and the objections of the respondent/objector will be decided afresh

after both the parties are allowed to lead their evidence in support of their

cases. It is also clarified that nothing in the impugned judgments will

influence the court for passing of a fresh judgment in accordance with law

after evidence is led by both the parties.


4.             Accordingly with the consent of parties impugned judgments

are set aside and objections which are filed by the objector/respondent are

remanded for a fresh decision by the executing court. The executing court

will frame issues as per the objections and the reply thereto of the

respondent/decree holder, and thereafter give necessary opportunities to the



RSA 167/2009                                                  Page 2 of 3
 parties to lead evidence. Objections thereafter will be decided in accordance

with law.


5.             At the request of both the parties it is noted that unnecessary

adjournments will not be granted and the executing court will impose heavy

costs on taking adjournment.


6.             Let the parties appear before the District and Sessions Judge,

Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi on 31.07.2014. The District and Sessions Judge

will mark the execution petition and the objections to a competent court for

disposal in accordance with law. Parties are left to bear their own costs.




MAY 20, 2014                                  VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.

mm