Collusive Objections by Judgment Debtor's Relative to Thwart Decree Execution Dismissed: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Concurrent Findings - 2025-04-08

Legal Awareness & Information.

High Court Dismisses Appeal, Cites Collusion Between Appellant and Judgment Debtor to Defeat Creditor

Chandigarh: The High Court of Punjab and Haryana, in a recent judgment, dismissed two connected Execution Second Appeals (ESAs), including ESA No. 13 of 2020, filed by Surinder Kaur . The Court, presided over by Justice Arun Palli , upheld the concurrent findings of the lower courts, which concluded that the appellant had colluded with the judgment debtor, her brother-in-law, in an attempt to obstruct the execution of a money decree.

Background of the Dispute

The case originates from a suit for recovery filed by Sh. Joginder Singh (decree-holder, whose interests are now represented by respondent Roop Singh) against Sh. Ranjit Singh (judgment debtor). This suit was decreed on September 29, 1996.

During the execution proceedings for this money decree, property belonging to the judgment debtor, Sh. Ranjit Singh , was attached. At this juncture, Ms. Surinder Kaur , the appellant and sister-in-law of Sh. Ranjit Singh , filed objection petitions. She claimed that Sh. Ranjit Singh had executed an agreement to sell the attached property in her favour on July 15, 1996, predating the decree. Ms. Kaur also stated she had filed a separate suit for specific performance of this alleged agreement, which is currently adjourned sine die.

Lower Courts' Findings: A Clear Case of Collusion

Both the Executing Court and the First Appellate Court examined Ms. Kaur 's objections and dismissed them. A critical aspect of their decisions was the finding of collusion. The judgment notes: "Both the Courts have found that the appellant and judgment debtor have colluded to defeat the creditor’s rights." This finding was significantly influenced by the close relationship between the appellant ( Surinder Kaur ) and the judgment debtor (Sh. Ranjit Singh ), i.e., sister-in-law and brother-in-law.

Furthermore, the judgment highlights that "In execution of the decree, the property has already been sold in favour of the auction purchaser, who has not been made party" to the current appeals.

Appellant's Contentions in the High Court

Before the High Court, counsel for Ms. Surinder Kaur argued that her objections were unfairly dismissed. A procedural point was also raised: "at one stage the execution petition was dismissed, which was restored without issuing notice to her."

High Court's Adjudication

Justice Arun Palli , after hearing the learned counsel and perusing the case records, found no merit in the appeals. The Court emphasized the consistent findings of the lower courts. Addressing the procedural argument, the High Court observed, "It is evident that subsequently the appellant filed fresh objection petition, which was considered and dismissed by the Executing Court. The appellant filed first appeal, which was also dismissed. Hence, the objection filed by the appellant have already been considered."

The High Court concluded that there were no grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the courts below. The judgment states: "The appellant assails the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the Courts below while dismissing her objection petition... Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, no ground to interfere is made out."

Final Decision and Implications

Consequently, the High Court dismissed both Execution Second Appeals (ESA 13/2020 and the connected appeal) along with any pending miscellaneous applications.

This decision underscores the judiciary's stance against attempts to misuse legal processes to obstruct the rights of decree-holders. Courts will meticulously examine objections raised during execution proceedings, particularly when a close relationship exists between the objector and the judgment debtor, to unearth any collusive arrangements designed to frustrate the execution of lawful decrees. The fact that the property had already been sold to an auction purchaser, who was not impleaded, further weakened the appellant's case.