Delhi High Court
Sh.Budh Sen vs Sh.Ajit Singh on 15 October, 2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ C.R.P.No.213/2013 & C.M.No.19001/2013 (Stay)
% 15th October, 2014
SH.BUDH SEN ......Petitioner
Through: Mr.Basant Kr.Singh, Advocate.
VERSUS
SH.AJIT SINGH ...... Respondent
Through: Ms.Mehak Gupta, Advocate.
+ C.R.P.No.214/2013 & C.M.No.19011/2013 (Stay), 197/2014 (u/S 151
CPC)
SH.BUDH SEN ......Petitioner
Through: Mr.Basant Kr.Singh, Advocate.
VERSUS
SH.SATYAPAL SINGH ...... Respondent
Through: Ms.Mehak Gupta, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. These petitions are being disposed of by this common judgment, inasmuch
as the impugned judgment of the executing court in both the cases is the same.
2. The petitioner was the defendant in the suit filed by the
respondents/plaintiffs/decree holders. The suit for possession, permanent
injunction and mesne profits/damages was decreed in terms of the settlement
arrived at between the parties before the mediation centre on 07.3.2008/
14.3.2008. The objector/petitioner claimed that settlement was not validly arrived
at because the settlement papers were wrongly got signed by the decree
holders/plaintiffs but that defence was rejected by the trial court. An appeal filed
against the decree by the petitioner/objector was also dismissed, and further the
Regular Second Appeal filed in this Court being RSA No.157/2011 was also
dismissed.
3. The only ground raised in the objection petition was that the suit property
has been acquired by the Government, and therefore the decree
holders/respondents/plaintiffs had no right to get the consent decree passed in their
favour pursuant to the settlement before the mediation centre.
4. It is settled law that the executing court cannot go behind the decree. It is
only in case that a decree is found to have been passed by the court having no
inherent jurisdiction, then the decree cannot be executed. Issues on merits which
ought to have been raised in the suit cannot be raised by means of objections in the
execution petition, and therefore contentions of the petitioner/objector that the
land stood acquired by the Government, and consequently the consent decree of
possession could not have been passed, is not available in execution proceedings
to the petitioner/objector because it is an issue of merits. In any case, the
plaintiffs/respondents/decree holders have stated that merely sending of a letter
dated 20.8.2002 (exhibited as Ex.PW1/33 in the suit) does not mean that the land
has been acquired by the Government because in fact the land was never acquired
by the Government and the plaintiffs/respondents/decree holders did not receive
any amount or any alternative flat in terms of a scheme of the Government on the
land being acquired.
5. In my opinion, the objections filed by the petitioner/objector, who was the
defendant in the suit and against whom a consent decree was passed are clearly an
abuse of the process of law. In fact, objections were liable to be dismissed in
limine because the judgment debtor who is a defendant in the suit, cannot object to
the decree in which he was a defendant, much less on a settlement arrived at
between the parties before the mediation centre, as the decree is final and binding
on the petitioner/defendant as per Section 11 of Code of Civil Procedure Act, 1908
(CPC).
6. These petitions, as also the objections in the execution petitions, therefore
being an abuse of process of the law, are dismissed with costs of Rs.10,000/- in
each petition. Costs be paid within a period of four weeks from today.
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J
OCTOBER 15, 2014/KA
