Delhi High Court
Charanjit Kaur Virk vs Premlata Sharma & Ors on 15 October, 2018
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 15th October, 2018.
+ EX.F.A. 17/2018 & CM No.20367/2018 (for stay)
CHARANJIT KAUR VIRK ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Kirti Uppal, Sr. Adv. with Mr.
Ritvik Chawla, Adv.
Versus
PREMLATA SHARMA & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Akshay Vyas & Mr. Rizwan
Aftab, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
1. This Execution First Appeal (EFA) under Order XXI Rule 58 of the
Code of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) impugns the order [dated 28th
February, 2018 in Execution No.2885/2016 of the Court of Additional
District Judge-05, South] of dismissal of objections filed by the appellant /
objector to the execution sought by the respondent no.1 / decree-holder of a
money decree against the respondents no.2&3 / judgment-debtors viz.
Benchmark International and Mr. Gurdip Singh Virk, Proprietor of
Benchmark International.
2. This EFA came up first before this Court on 16 th May, 2018 when, on
the contention of the senior counsel then appearing for the appellant /
objector that only about Rs.3 lacs was remaining payable under the decree
and the appellant / objector was the sole owner of the two properties attached
in the execution and in which the respondent no.3 / judgment-debtor Gurdip
Singh Virk, who is the son of the appellant / objector, had no right, title or
interest, notice was issued and the impugned order stayed.
3. The counsel for the respondent no.1 / plaintiff / decree-holder appears
and on enquiry states that a sum of about Rs.15 lacs is due under the decree.
4. Though the senior counsel for the appellant / objector states that the
same is disputed but does not have the computation in accordance with the
decree. Even otherwise, it is not the task of this Court to compute the
amount under the decree. It is also not the entitlement of the appellant /
objector to contend so. It is only the respondents no.2&3 / judgment debtors
who can make submissions in this regard.
5. In execution of the decree aforesaid, warrants of attachment of goods
lying in the property No.A-36, Neb Velly, Neb Sarai, New Delhi and of
attachment of rent of property No.A-2/6, Street No.6, Vasant Vihar, New
Delhi were ordered to be issued. The appellant / objector objected to the
same contending that all the goods in house No.A-36, Neb Velly, Neb Sarai,
New Delhi were of the appellant / objector and not of the respondents
no.2&3 / judgment-debtors and the rent of Rs.4 lacs per month being
realized of property No.A-2/6, Street No.6, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi was
under a lease deed executed between the appellant / objector and the
Embassy of Tajikistan.
6. The Executing Court has dismissed the objections holding that the
appellant / objector, in proof of her title to house No.A-36, Neb Velly, Neb
Sarai, New Delhi, had filed only a Power of Attorney of her husband in her
favour and not any document of title and in proof of title to property No.A-
2/6, Street No.6, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi, only the lease deed and no title
document.
7. I have today also asked the senior counsel for the appellant / objector,
who is the owner of property No.A-2/6, Street No.6, Vasant Vihar, New
Delhi.
8. The senior counsel for the appellant / objector states that though he
does not have complete instructions and has not seen the documents but has
been instructed that there is some Family Settlement. On further enquiry, it
is stated that the husband of the appellant / objector, who was the father of
the respondent no.3 / judgment-debtor, was owner of both the properties and
there has been a Family Settlement between the heirs of the father.
9. However, neither was any such Family Settlement pleaded in the
objections nor have any documents been filed before the Executing Court or
before this Court in this regard. Therefrom, it appears that the entire purpose
is to delay the execution and the appellant / objector and the respondents
no.2&3 / judgment-debtors, who are hand in glove, are not making a clean
breast of the state of affairs. The attempt obviously is to fabricate documents,
leaving nothing to satisfy the decree, especially since the respondent no.3 /
judgment debtor has already left India.
10. The appellant / objector cannot on the one hand claim arms length
distance from the respondents no.2&3 / judgment-debtors and on the other
hand represent the interest of the respondents no.2&3 / judgment-debtors.
11. The appeal is in abuse of the process of the Court and is dismissed.
The execution to go on.
No costs.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J
OCTOBER 15, 2018
'gsr'
