Arun Kumar Jha, J. – The lament of Right Hon. Sir James Colvile in the year 1872 in a case before the Privy Council (The General Manager of the Raj Durbhunga, Under the Court of Wards vs. Maharajah Coomar Ramaput Sing), (1871-72)14 MIA 605, also reported in (1872) SCC OnLine PC 16 “that the difficulties of a litigant in India begin when he has obtained a decree” still holds true and the situation has not improved even after a century and half.

2. This prophetic observation has been taken note by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Jini Dhanrajgir and Anr. vs. Shibu Mathew and Anr., reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 643 [: 2023 (4) BLJ 167 (SC)] and Predeep Mehra vs. Harijivan J. Jethwa (Since Deceased Thr. LRS.) & Ors., reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1395. There is no gainsaying the fact that even after lapse of so much time, the woes of decree-holders have not subsided and execution proceedings are being used by judgment-debtors with impunity who exploit every provision to their benefit to the fullest extent possible to frustrate the execution proceedings making the whole process look like a farce and the courts become unwitting tools in the shenanigans of unscrupulous litigants. But the observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jini Dhanrajgir and Anr. (supra) is to be kept in mind that the situation is indeed disquieting, viewed from the perspective of the decree holders, but the law, as it stands has to be given effect whether the court likes the result or not.

3. In the present case, the instant petition has been filed for setting aside the order dated 06.10.2018 passed by the learned Munsif Sadar, Purnea in Title Execution Case No. 02 of 2015 by which the learned Munsif has rejected the petition dated 23.03.2017 filed by the petitioners, who are judgment debtor nos.2 to 6 and respondent nos. 1 and 2 are the decree holders.

4. The respondent 1st set (Respondent Nos. 1 and 2) filed Title Suit No. 479 of 1990 before the Court of learned Munsif Sadar, Purnea against Krishna Devi (Defendant 1st party), Smt. Shyama Devi (defendant 2nd party) and Md. Kasim (Respondent No.3/defendant 3rd party) seeking following relief(s): –

“A. Let it be decided and declared by the Court that the Defendant No. 1 Defendant finalized to sell the suit land with the Plaintiffs on 21.09.1990 and in pursuance to that the Defendant No.1 received a sum of Rs.2,100/- as an advance from Plaintiffs and executed and Registered a Jarbeyananama 22.09.1990 and agreed and promised to execute and Registered Sale Deed with respect to the suit land in favour of the Plaintiffs on receipt of balance consideration money.

B. After above adjudication, it be declared by the Court that Defendant No.1 during the subsistence of the valid contract could not sell the suit land to the Defendant No.2 and the Sale Deeds executed and Registered by the Defendant No.1 to the Defendant No.2 for the suit land on 31.10.1990 / 01.01.1990 in sham and collusive transaction and the same is without consideration and the Defendant No.2 did not acquire any valid, right, title, interest or possession over the suit land the same be set-aside.

C. After the above adjudication, a decree for specific performance of contract for the suit land be passed in favour of the Plaintiffs, against the Defendants and the Defendant No.1 be directed to execute and Register the Sale Deed with respect to the suit land in favour of the Plaintiffs on receipt of balance consideration money within the time fixed by the Court and the Defendant No.2 also be directed to join hands with the Defendant No.1 and if the Defendants failed to execute and Register the Sale Deed with respect to the suit land on receipt of the balance consideration money in favour of the Plaintiffs, the Court be pleased to execute and Register the Sale Deed for the suit land on behalf of the Defendants to the Plaintiffs on the cost of the Defendants on deposit the balance consideration money in Court by the Plaintiffs and the posse