SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2000 Supreme(SC) 1484

Supreme Court Of India
MERCANTILE INDUSTRIAL development CO. (P) LTD
Versus
WAHID CHAUHAN
Decided on : September 8, 2000

Headnote:

Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order 15, Rule 1, Order 21 Rule 24 - Constitution of India, Articles 226 and 227 - Execution of decree for possession - One of the objections was that the decree was a nullity-After about ten years application moved to treat that issue as preliminary issue, rejected by executing court- High Court erred in allowing that issue to be treated as preliminary issue- Not proper- The application was clearly mala fide and had been done so with a view to prolong the litigation- Moreover with two courts having rejected the application, the High Court was not correctly advised to exercise its writ jurisdiction and set aside the said orders [Paras 3 and 4]

( 1 ) SPECIAL leave granted.

( 2 ) A suit was filed in 1983 for the recovery of the suit premises. The said suit was decreed in the plaintiffs favour in 1985 in an execution proceeding in which objections were filed by the respondent. One of the objections was whether the decree which had been passed on 7-9-1985 was a nullity. Issue in this regard and other issues were framed on 13-1-1988. We are informed that for a period of nearly ten years no evidence was recorded. On 26-3-1998, an application was filed by the respondent to the effect that Issue 2 relating tc the contention that the decree was a nullity and non-executable should be tried as a preliminary issue. The Small Cause Court rejected this application and this was affirmed by the Appellate Bench of the Small Cause Court. The high Court, however, in a writ petition, which was filed, has reversed this decision and has directed Issue 2 to be tried as a preliminary issue.

( 3 ) WE find that the order of the High Court is not correct. First of all, it appears to us that the exercise of moving this application for treating Issue 2 as a preliminary issue is clearly mala fide and has been done so with a view to prolong the litigation. This application was filed after ten years of the issues being framed. The only desire can be to somehow or the other prolong the dispute. Furthermore, with two courts having rejected the prayer for framing the preliminary issue the High Court was not correctly advised to exercise its writ jurisdiction and set aside the said orders. There was no error of jurisdiction exercised by the courts below and in any event the issue in question cannot be decided without recording evidence. It was not a pure issue of law which may have been regarded as a preliminary issue.

( 4 ) WE, accordingly, allow this appeal, set aside the judgment of the High court and direct the executing court to proceed to hear the case expeditiously and dispose of the same within three months from today. The appellant will be entitled to costs. The cost is quantified at Rs 10,000 to be borne by the respondent.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top