A bench of Supreme Court consisting of Cheif Justice S.A. Bhobde, Justices L. Nageswara Rao and S. Ravindra Bhat while hearing an appeal in relation to execution of a decree connected to a disputed sale of land, gave out some elaborate directions which the courts dealing with suits and execution proceedings shall mandatorily follow. The court further also directed all the High Courts to reconsider and update all the Rules relating to Execution of Decrees, made under exercise of its powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and Section 122 of CPC, within one year of the date of this Order.
The High Court must make these rules in consonance with CPC and the directions given by the Supreme Court in the present case.
Facts of the case:
The present appeal arose out of a common judgement of the Karnataka High Court while dismissing several writ petitions. The course of the litigation highlights the malaise of constant abuse of procedural provisions which defeats justice, i.e. frivolous attempts by unsuccessful litigants to putting up spurious objections and setting up third parties, to object, delay and obstruct the execution of a decree.
The suit concerns with a disputed property and its impugned sale after which several objections regarding the same arose. The vendor and her son (judgment debtors) after executing the sale deed in respect of a major portion of the property questioned the transaction by a suit for declaration. The decree holders also filed a suit for possession. During the pendency of these proceedings, two sets of sale deeds were executed. The vendors’ suit was dismissed – the decree of dismissal was upheld at the stage of the High Court too. On the other hand, the purchasers’ suit was decreed and became the subject matter of the appeal.
Contention of appellant:
Mr. Shailesh Madiyal on behalf of the appellant argued on the following ground:
- It was pointed out by the counsel for the appellant that there were disputes with respect to boundaries and identity of the properties as between parties, therefore, the impugned order should be interfered with and the reliefs sought by the appellant be granted.
- Learned counsel submitted that decree holder’s efforts in all the proceedings were to confuse the identity of the property and therefore had sought clubbing of both execution cases.
- It was also highlighted that the High Court acted in error in rejecting the appellants’ request for subjecting documents to forensic examination by handwriting experts.
Contention of the respondent:
The learned counsel appearing for the respondent contended the following:
- It was contended that numerous proceedings were taken out and that the judgment debtors had sold the very same property three times over.
- The judgment debtors had sought a declaration that the sale deeds executed in favour of the decree holders were not genuine and lost, thereafter; they succeeded in collecting compensation in respect of the portion of the property that had been acquired. Ultimately, those amounts had to be disbursed by the Court orders.
- The High Court took note of all these circumstances and passed a just order, requiring the appointment of a Court Commissioner to identify and measure the properties. Therefore wanting no interference with the same.
Order and observation of the court:
The court made the following observation:
- In civil suit, all questions and issues that may arise must be decided in one and the same trial.
- While there may be genuine claims over the subject matter property, the Code also recognises that there might be frivolous or instigated claims to deprive the decree holder from availing the benefits of the decree.
- The Court must play an active role in deciding all such related issues to the subject matter during adjudication of the suit itself and ensure that a clear, unambiguous, and executable decree is passed in any suit.
- Wherein there is urgent need to reduce delays in the execution proceedings the court deemed it appropriate to issue few directions to do complete justice.
The court hence issued 16 directions which all Courts dealing with suits and execution proceedings shall mandatorily follow. The high court were also asked to reconsider and update all the Rules relating to Execution of Decrees, made under exercise of its powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and Section 122 of CPC, within one year of the date of this Order. Until such time these Rules which are brought into existence would remain enforceable.
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Share this Document :Picture Source :
